Yet Another Cycling Forum

Off Topic => The Pub => Topic started by: citoyen on 22 April, 2019, 08:13:20 pm

Title: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 22 April, 2019, 08:13:20 pm
I thought we had a thread on this subject already but I can't find it so...

Listening to Mary Anne Hobbs on 6music this morning, she introduced her “All Queens” playlist by saying, “Now it’s time for music made by humans with the X chromosome - the best kind.”

Well, yeeeees... I suppose they are the best kind of humans.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Phil W on 22 April, 2019, 08:32:11 pm
Indeed all Humans have the X chromosome
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 22 April, 2019, 08:56:12 pm
Even those with Turner's Syndrome...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 23 April, 2019, 08:08:27 am
My 'favourite' show for really bad 'science' and 'engineering' was Scorpion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_%28TV_series%29
It even featured a large room where the air was being pumped out to extinguish a fire: it seemed to need a hard vacuum - can't imagine a room with ordinary walls, lot of glass etc. taking that; also doesn't need to be that hard - and featured a shot of a plastic bottle collapsing! Must have been a Microsoft vacuum - didn't suck.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Beardy on 23 April, 2019, 08:21:58 am
My 'favourite' show for really bad 'science' and 'engineering' was Scorpion
I had to stop watching that, which given my low threshold for cheesy American TV is saying something.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 02 May, 2019, 02:58:13 pm
At Scouts last week, I gave the little terrors* a survival on the moon exercise I'd stumbled across. List of items, rank in importance when a hypothetical space ship crashes on the moon etc etc.

One item was a pair of automatic pistols, with ammunition.  The "official" answer said that these could be used as propulsion devices, presumably in an action/equal and opposite reaction kind of a way.  I and several of the scouts were not convinced. Discussing it later with The Boy, he pointed out that the force exerted on the bullet will be equal to mass x acceleration and that mass is independent of gravity. This further argued against the official answer. Presumably the reactive force is the kick of the gun against the shooter's hand, which as far as I know isn't that much.  But does the reduced gravity of the moon come in to it?

Over the the massed minds of yacf.


*A few weeks before I'd set them the task of identifyig the source of the quotation "steely eyed missile man". They do a lot of googling in exchage for a bar of chocolate.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: essexian on 02 May, 2019, 03:05:33 pm
Sorry, but I don't know the answer...its 40 years since I did this stuff, but you may find the following Youtube video from PBS Spacetime interesting and helpful.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaN0xg2VQSo


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 May, 2019, 03:10:14 pm
Moon's gravity only comes into it if you're using the force of the explosion to fight gravity in some way.  So if you shoot into the 'air', the bullet will travel further than on earth (even before you take the lack of air resistance into effect).  And if you try to use the recoil as an Orion-style propulsion system, you'll fail to get off the ground slightly less badly.  I'd be wary of an automatic weapon overheating and jamming if operated in hard vacuum (in a least-of-your-problems kind of way).

But the real reason for taking a pistol into space is to defend yourself from BEARS if you suspect your return trajectory to Earth may strand you somewhere remote. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82_Cosmonaut_survival_pistol)

Conceivably the ammunition might come in useful if you wanted to start a fire for some reason, or maybe even improvise a pyrotechnic actuator for something.  Or you could use the butt of the pistol to apply ham-fisted monkey force to some recalcitrant item of space hardware.  Or you could shoot a hole in your spacecraft, perhaps while murdering a crew member.  Personally, I'd rather have an extra roll of duct tape.  Not even NASA can improve on duct tape.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: essexian on 02 May, 2019, 03:15:05 pm
Curious Droid did an interested video on Project Orion which can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dUYfDg3G2A
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 02 May, 2019, 03:16:55 pm
BEARS? Maybe SOUP DRAGONS.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 May, 2019, 03:18:44 pm
BEARS? Maybe SOUP DRAGONS.

YACFers know that the sure way to defeat a soup dragon is with DHL, not firearms.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 02 May, 2019, 03:20:23 pm
He's correct that it's mass, so gravity is irrelevant (and why you only fall over if you fire a big gun, though given the attitude of some NRA types, that might just be a swoon before they head off somewhere quiet with their gun for a bit of vigorous polishing).

As for the Moon, pretty useless against aliens too, since they will have probabilistic weaponry that might kill you. If not today, then yesterday. Regardless, they're the type of weapon that's very accurate spatially if not temporally.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: philip on 02 May, 2019, 03:36:09 pm
Larger guns have significant recoil: https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: caerau on 02 May, 2019, 04:25:23 pm
Interesting that last link there.  Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the scenes in Predator with Jesse Ventura  :-D   Not that it was ever all *that* believable of course.


(and all other films where people carry about mini-guns that are designed to fire from helicopters and stuff)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 02 May, 2019, 04:31:35 pm
Interesting that last link there.  Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the scenes in Predator with Jesse Ventura  :-D   Not that it was ever all *that* believable of course.


(and all other films where people carry about mini-guns that are designed to fire from helicopters and stuff)

Totally unrealistic.

Quote
For movie use, armorers slow down the M134 minigun's rate of fire to conserve ammo, and to allow the spinning barrels to be visible to the movie audience, with a hidden power cable for the firing scenes, and using blank ammo to ease recoil. Nonetheless the prop is still extremely physically demanding, hence the actors wielding it are physically imposing and often have bodybuilding backgrounds. Generally, such depictions will totally ignore the weapon's need for external power, and sometimes even forget that it requires a source of ammunition. In practice, a man-portable M134 minigun would be nearly impossible to manage as an individual infantry weapon, and highly impractical for a human being to either carry or operate. A scaled-down version of the M134, the XM214 Microgun, never reached production status for such reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun#Fiction_and_popular_culture
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 02 May, 2019, 04:33:15 pm
Here you go:

https://youtu.be/0nUADMhYO1c

You can only carry a few seconds of ammo and I imagine the battery is hefty, so no jumping through the air and firing one-handed. Save that for AR15s.

I fired a .45 and that about took my arm off.

ETA: watch the fellow slide backwards when he lets off a sustained burst. Put him on a skateboard and he'd be moving...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 May, 2019, 04:47:17 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun#Fiction_and_popular_culture

AKA by Rankin fans as "one of those amazing rotary machine-guns like Blaine had in Predator".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: caerau on 02 May, 2019, 07:59:02 pm
Y’know I knew all that  :facepalm: - perhaps we need an ‘I’m being flippant’ smiley of some kind.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 02 May, 2019, 08:02:22 pm
I personally was happy to find that an America was up for firing a mini-gun by hand (or strap) and thus demonstrating that they can indeed be used for personal protection. Take that, victim disarmers!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 02 May, 2019, 11:24:48 pm
One item was a pair of automatic pistols, with ammunition.
On the moon, I can't see these being much use. In space, equal and opposite reaction would mean that you could fire into space and start yourself moving, very slowly, back towards your spacecraft, if, say, your spacewalk happened to have gone wrong and left you stranded.

The difference being that friction on the surface of the moon would prevent you moving. Unless you jumped in the air and then fired the gun. In which case, even on the moon, you would probably jump about 1mm further than if you'd just jumped normally.

In either situation, throwing the gun might work better, because it's heavier than a bullet. (Maybe I'm underestimating the recoil from a pistol. I've never fired one.)

Also, throwing the gun doesn't depend on the gunpowder, or whatever chemical propellant they use in guns these days, actually working in a vacuum.

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 May, 2019, 11:53:14 pm
Agree that throwing the pistol is likely to be more useful as a means of propulsion.  For optimal specific impulse you'd remove the propellant from the cartridges and install it in an appropriately designed solid fuel rocket engine.  (Was a lathe and assortment of high-temperature alloy stock amongst the ship's manifest?  Every astronaut should have them.)  It's all about optimising the velocity of those exhaust gases.

AIUI the propellant, like all good explosives, contains its own oxidiser, so should work in the absence of air.  The thermal environment could be quite hostile to something not engineered for it, thobut - not only does the temperature on the surface of the moon vary between boiling and minus bloodyhellhowmuch, but a machine designed with convection cooling in mind (which is surely most hand-held firearms) will have difficulty dissipating heat in a vacuum.  That's likely to be bad if you operate it at high rates of fire.

How your pistol (and ammunition) behaves outside a sane temperature envelope left as an exercise for the gun nut, but I'm predicting either a disappointing sound-doesn't-travel-in-a-vacuum absence of a 'click' at a critical moment, or some sort of undesirable BANG.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jaded on 02 May, 2019, 11:54:30 pm
It’s simple. You keep one loaded pistol, as a priority.

It’s for the inevitable murder-suicide.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 03 May, 2019, 08:07:02 am
A blackpowder rifle with a really long barrel would be much more efficient. Loaded with not a lot of powder; you want it burning and expanding all the way down the barrel but not outside of the barrel. That's my intuitive feeling on the subject. The oxidizer is in the powder, so of course it will work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 03 May, 2019, 10:11:41 am
You're still confined by the mass ejected from the barrel, so on that basis a .50 slug will give you more of a nudge than a .22 caseless round, unless it was fired at very high velocity and in significant numbers (which I suppose they are).

Modern high-fire-rate guns will have recoil suppression by circulating the hot exhaust gases, which I guess would really give you all the happiness of a very warm gun in short order.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 03 May, 2019, 10:26:56 am
Trailer for The Wandering Earth based on a shortish story by the excellent Cixin Liu suggests that a gravitational spike from Jupiter will cause the Earth to hit it, and only heroic action can save blah blah.  Betcha things get actioned, someone gets tasked, people just do it and it all gets fixed with a great big explosion. Most scientific.

Oh, I hope not.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 03 May, 2019, 10:35:21 am
Agree that throwing the pistol is likely to be more useful as a means of propulsion.  For optimal specific impulse you'd remove the propellant from the cartridges and install it in an appropriately designed solid fuel rocket engine.  (Was a lathe and assortment of high-temperature alloy stock amongst the ship's manifest?  Every astronaut should have them.)  It's all about optimising the velocity of those exhaust gases.

As well as checking for of a lathe etc, make sure the passenger list includes This Old Tony (https://www.youtube.com/user/featony) or Stefan Gotteswinter (https://www.youtube.com/user/syyl)
Another item listed was a self inflating life raft. The official answer was this may be useful as the CO2 cartridges to inflate it could be used to help leap chasms inna jet propulsion stylee. Again, we didn't think there would be enough gas to do so.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 03 May, 2019, 02:17:55 pm
If you're inna spaceship that's crashed on the moon, I'm not sure why you'd want to do all this bouncing around anyway.  Surely the best approach is to either fix the spaceship, or if that's not viable, sit tight and stay alive until somebody with a working spaceship or lunar rover can come and rescue you.

If your spaceship is equipped with a device for converting CO2 to oxygen using copious amounts of electricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Oxygen_ISRU_Experiment), it might come in useful there.

Or spread the raft out to increase your crash site's visibility from space...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 03 May, 2019, 02:34:40 pm
Ah, sorry. The mission, should you choose to accept it, is to trek 200 miles across the lunar surface to the mothership.  Whether this is the same mothership that our Tidy Haired Thought Leader works in wasn't mentioned.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 03 May, 2019, 03:18:51 pm
Oh, so they really are doing The Martian[1]...

Hmm, speed of an unladen Apollo astronaut was about 2.2km/h, so that's about 146 hours of moonwalking.  Potentially in a suit with consumables rated for 8 hours.  I think you'd need to science the shit out of that, especially if your plan hinged on continued availability of sunlight...


[1] Mostly the non-potato stuff that barely made it to the film.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 03 May, 2019, 03:32:17 pm
Work of a moment to build a trolley to personhaul extra consumables. Next problem is your, er, waste pouches filling up. Science the shit out of that.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 03 May, 2019, 03:40:28 pm
Oh, so they really are doing The Martian[1]...

Hmm, speed of an unladen Apollo astronaut was about 2.2km/h, so that's about 146 hours of moonwalking.  Potentially in a suit with consumables rated for 8 hours.  I think you'd need to science the shit out of that, especially if your plan hinged on continued availability of sunlight...


[1] Mostly the non-potato stuff that barely made it to the film.

I set the Scouts a question most week, the product of my fevered brain. The purpose is to get them to remember a simple message and to get them to work out where to look stuff up.  A couple of weeks ago I asked them to work out which film I'd watched as I flew to Australia, the only clue being it referred to a "steely eyed missile man".  The answer on the card is Apollo 13, but one gave the answer The Martian. Damn Ridley Scott and his hat tipping.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 03 May, 2019, 05:14:32 pm
Was it in Apollo 13?  I probably need to re-watch that.

It was originally a reference to John Aaron saving the Apollo 12 mission by being a *massive* nerd.  The whole CO2 scrubber thing was over-egged in the Apollo 13 film, because "You know that thing we worked out on a simulation several missions ago?  How did we do it again?" doesn't make for very good drama.

But that's okay, because if it hadn't been for that scene, I doubt Andy Weir would have written The Martian.

Ob-xkcd:

(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_martian.png) (https://xkcd.com/1536/)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 03 May, 2019, 10:24:18 pm
Also, on the moon or in space, would it be possible to fire a pistol without first removing your space gloves? In which case, the escaping oxygen would probably move you further than firing the gun would have done anyway. Although with unfortunate side-effects.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 03 May, 2019, 10:44:01 pm
Also, on the moon or in space, would it be possible to fire a pistol without first removing your space gloves? In which case, the escaping oxygen would probably move you further than firing the gun would have done anyway. Although with unfortunate side-effects.

Thinsulate gloves, they'll do the trick
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 04 May, 2019, 12:44:57 am
You'd need to be careful where you pointed the gun, anyway. There's nothing much to slow a bullet down in space. You might kill someone on Alpha Centauri in about 1.3 million years' time. For that matter, of course, the gun you threw might hit them on the head, if the universe were to stay around for long enough.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 04 May, 2019, 08:03:16 am
Douglas Adams would have made something of that.

Anyway, I'm perplexed that none of NASA's efforts have included wire coat-hangers in the cargo manifest. I'm convinced that if the wire coat-hanger were to be eliminated civilization would collapse.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 04 May, 2019, 08:03:42 am
You'd need to be careful where you pointed the gun, anyway. There's nothing much to slow a bullet down in space. You might kill someone on Alpha Centauri in about 1.3 million years' time. For that matter, of course, the gun you threw might hit them on the head, if the universe were to stay around for long enough.
Rather pleasingly, one of the scouts suggested you might shoot yourself in the back.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 04 May, 2019, 09:17:38 am
 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I'm not sure now whether to try this on my Scouts, or whether it's all got just too complicated ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 04 May, 2019, 02:34:45 pm
Rather pleasingly, one of the scouts suggested you might shoot yourself in the back.

 :thumbsup:

AIUI the lunar gravity is too lumpy to make really low orbits like that possible, which I reckon is proof that the universe has no sense of humour.

*googles*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_16#Particles_and_Fields_Subsatellite_PFS-2

Perigee of 6 miles!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Ashaman42 on 04 May, 2019, 02:47:53 pm
Periapsis or perilune no? :D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 04 May, 2019, 04:01:09 pm
AIUI the lunar gravity is too lumpy to make really low orbits like that possible, which I reckon is proof that the universe has no sense of humour.

Oh, I dunno: a gravitational field you can't rely on is quite a good joke, really.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Morat on 06 May, 2019, 09:24:44 pm
A quick google shows the recoil energy of a .45 pistol to be 1200 ft/lbs or 1600 Joules.

Sounds like a lot to me, but of course it's a momentary impulse rather than sustained thrust.

Over to the rocket scientists :)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 11:18:18 am
Working on a feature about hydration, and a couple of 'experts' are quoted, talking about 'gel water'. This is what they have to say:
'Gel water is a newly identified, different kind of water that doesn’t go right through you like regular water – your body can absorb it better. It’s found in all fruits and veggies and all living cells. By eating more fruits and vegetables we are consuming more gel water and gaining better hydration.'

This set a few alarm bells ringing, so I thought I'd better look into it. Top of the search results? A piece from Goop. Hmmmmm...

'Gel water, also called structured, ordered, liquid crystalline, or living water, is a newly identified phase of water that’s not quite liquid, vapor, or ice. Gel water is identified by an extra hydrogen and oxygen atom, so the molecular structure is H302. It’s a highly conductive molecular structure, as the extra hydrogen atoms are constantly moving back and forth between molecules, generating electricity.'
https://goop.com/wellness/health/structured-water-youve-been-doing-it-wrong-why-youre-still-dehydrated/

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 05 May, 2021, 11:53:06 am
That Goop page is extreme brilliance.

Quote from: anthropologist turned health coach
Gel water, also called structured, ordered, liquid crystalline, or living water, is a newly identified phase of water that’s not quite liquid, vapor, or ice. Gel water is identified by an extra hydrogen and oxygen atom, so the molecular structure is H302. It’s a highly conductive molecular structure, as the extra hydrogen atoms are constantly moving back and forth between molecules, generating electricity. In this phase, water crystals overlap and interlink like lace or crocheted netting, the way snowflakes do. But unlike snowflakes, which are stationary, gel water creates this structure while remaining in a fluid state. It is not temperature that defines gel water, so much as its shifting molecular structure.

Many people ask if gel water is in a plasma state. While gel water is conceptually similar to plasma, it is highly organized (crystalline-like)—unlike plasma, which has no distinct structure. Gel water can be as thin as liquid, just slightly more silky, or it can develop to be as thick as jello. You know the gel-like substance that forms around chia seeds when you soak them in water? That’s water in the gel phase.

The 'gel-like' substance around chia seeds is the very definition of a gel (hydrated mucins and pectins, not some special new phase of water).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 12:07:18 pm
The 'gel-like' substance around chia seeds is the very definition of a gel (hydrated mucins and pectins, not some special new phase of water).

I don't know why people feel the need to invent spurious new pseudoscientific explanations for things like this... Oh, hang on, of course I know why they do it - it's because they have products to sell to the gullible.

I've reworked the copy to say 'eat lots of fruit and veg because they contain water, so are good for hydration'. Because, like duh.

I love my job.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 05 May, 2021, 12:16:55 pm
It's the way they do grab a little bit of science (water is truly amazing stuff) then totally misunderstand it yet don't let this stop them. Off they go.

Honestly, it is not temperature that defines gel water, so much as its shifting molecular structure...

Take that, thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 12:38:26 pm
This from another source is a doozy:

Quote
“A go-to hydration tip is to drink at least half your bodyweight in ounces of water,” says Wickham.

I feel like there's some information missing here. I mean, drinking 40+ litres of water a day would certainly help me stay hydrated, but I don't know why expressing that as 1400oz would make any difference.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 05 May, 2021, 12:44:04 pm
Having read the above, all I can say - apart from "What the actual ever-loving bleeding blue fuck is this?" - is that candles scented with la Paltrow's... essence... are now officially no longer the wierdest thing on Goop.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 05 May, 2021, 12:46:06 pm
Also, the entire '8-glasses-a-day' is a Totally Made Up Thing.

Humans don't need constant hydration, especially when they're doing nothing more strenuous than sitting at a desk and clicking a mouse.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 12:51:01 pm
Also, the entire '8-glasses-a-day' is a Totally Made Up Thing.

To be fair to the experts, they do actually say this in the feature.

But then they go and spoil it with the stuff about magic water.

And they won't stop banging on about bloody chia seeds.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: philip on 05 May, 2021, 12:54:23 pm
This from another source is a doozy:

Quote
“A go-to hydration tip is to drink at least half your bodyweight in ounces of water,” says Wickham.

I feel like there's some information missing here. I mean, drinking 40+ litres of water a day would certainly help me stay hydrated, but I don't know why expressing that as 1400oz would make any difference.

Put it into USAnian: if you weigh, say, 180 pounds you should drink 180/2=90 ounces of water. That's about 11 cups. Litres?  We don't need those foreign units [about 2.5L - ed.]
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 01:00:59 pm
Put it into USAnian: if you weigh, say, 180 pounds you should drink 180/2=90 ounces of water. That's about 11 cups. Litres?  We don't need those foreign units [about 2.5L - ed.]

Yeah, but that's not what the quote actually says, and I'm choosing to interpret it literally to MAKE A BLOODY POINT.

One thing I had drummed into me at school - and one of the few things that has stuck with me from science lessons - is that you always state your units when giving any measurements.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 05 May, 2021, 01:04:28 pm
One thing I had drummed into me at school - and one of the few things that has stuck with me from science lessons - is that you always state your units when giving any measurements.

That's the sort of thing a scientist would do, and clearly has no place in marketing *checks notes* fruity water.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 05 May, 2021, 01:20:48 pm
Also, the entire '8-glasses-a-day' is a Totally Made Up Thing.

Humans don't need constant hydration, especially when they're doing nothing more strenuous than sitting at a desk and clicking a mouse.
Yep, as soon as the topic is hydration, there's going to be bluster, exaggeration, semi-science, pseudo-science and pure marketing.

Nevertheless, inventing an entire new phase of matter is exceptionally bold.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 01:50:05 pm
Nevertheless, inventing an entire new phase of matter is exceptionally bold.

The thing that makes it really stand out as bullshit is that they can't decide whether it's a new phase of matter or a completely different compound (H3O2) that isn't actually water and has different physical properties to water.

I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 05 May, 2021, 02:16:53 pm
I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?

Only when combined with antioxidants.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 02:18:40 pm
I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?

Only when combined with antioxidants.

Don't give them ideas!  ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Rod Marton on 05 May, 2021, 02:35:16 pm
I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?

Only when combined with antioxidants.

Don't give them ideas!  ;D

Been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide. There's a section on uses of hydrogen peroxide in alternative medicine.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 05 May, 2021, 02:48:31 pm
 :o
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 05 May, 2021, 02:53:34 pm
'Gel water' is cheap - sniff back your snot and swallow it.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Lightning Phil on 05 May, 2021, 04:00:39 pm
At Scouts last week, I gave the little terrors* a survival on the moon exercise I'd stumbled across. List of items, rank in importance when a hypothetical space ship crashes on the moon etc etc.

One item was a pair of automatic pistols, with ammunition.  The "official" answer said that these could be used as propulsion devices, presumably in an action/equal and opposite reaction kind of a way.

Conservation of momentum.  Let’s say the bullet has a mass of 50g, and the astronaut plus gun have a combined mass of 100kg.  The bullet is accelerated to 2,000mph. Assuming equal and opposite and conservation of momentum the astronaut will be accelerated to 50 / 100, 000 * 2,000 = 1 mph.  Moon’s gravity is roughly 1/6 of Earth’s. I’ll let someone else work out how soon the astronaut will hit the surface again and lose their speed, or how often the gun needs to be fired and at what angle to optimise time moving above the surface.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 05 May, 2021, 04:17:33 pm
Nevertheless, inventing an entire new phase of matter is exceptionally bold.

The thing that makes it really stand out as bullshit is that they can't decide whether it's a new phase of matter or a completely different compound (H3O2) that isn't actually water and has different physical properties to water.

I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?

But surely if you ingested water with more hydrogen you'd get lighter and lose weight. Gel water is the new weight loss sensation.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 10 May, 2021, 07:12:39 am
Article about making an area suitable for reptiles: needs sunshine, so put it on the S side of the valley.

Many years ago my then gf gave me directions to her friends' house. Roughly: along A-road to village, 2nd. R, house some way down on R, sundial on front of house. I said that it would be on the L. She thought for a moment then asked how I knew that. Well, N along A-road, R, so heading E, house on R would face N.
A sundial is a solar device - it stops when in shade. Needs a back-up battery.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 10 May, 2021, 07:21:54 am
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Diver300 on 10 May, 2021, 07:40:41 am
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?
Was it in the southern hemisphere?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jurek on 10 May, 2021, 07:57:08 am
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?
Was it in the southern hemisphere?
There's a new-build-look-a-bit-Victorian round the corner from me with a solar panel on a north-facing aspect of the roof.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 10 May, 2021, 08:32:35 am
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?
Was it in the southern hemisphere?

Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I have not been in the southern hemisphere recently, not since 2018 in fact.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 10 May, 2021, 08:40:12 am
Quote
"GPS is often only accurate to 4-5m. W3W divides the world into 3x3m squares, so it is more accurate than GPS."


(Have I ever mentioned how much I loath W3W?)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 10 May, 2021, 08:40:16 am
Nevertheless, inventing an entire new phase of matter is exceptionally bold.

The thing that makes it really stand out as bullshit is that they can't decide whether it's a new phase of matter or a completely different compound (H3O2) that isn't actually water and has different physical properties to water.

I suppose at least they're not telling us to drink hydrogen peroxide. I mean, it has more oxygen in it than ordinary water, so it must be good for us, right?
H3O2? My remembered chemistry is about on the same level as you say yours is, but I'd like them to run a diagram of that past someone who knows.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 10 May, 2021, 10:17:34 am
I think they're adding up water plus a free hydroxyl (OH) which does happen (but H2O+OH- doesn't equal H3O2). Pure water is a complex molecular fluid that comprises all manner of associations between water molecules and the constituent ions, of which much pseudoscience is claimed. It's the same crap that leads to the 'structure of water' claimed by advocates of homoeopathy, that somehow information can be 'imprinted' in these structures. In reality, these associations are fleeting, lasting pico- and nanoseconds and part of the standard thermodynamic (and stochastic) processes that govern molecular interactions in such a fluid.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 10 May, 2021, 12:05:31 pm
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?

Maybe they were holding the compass upside-down or didn't want to give the house prices cancer or something?

There's an argument for encouraging west-facing solar panels, in order to give greater output when the grid needs it most.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 10 May, 2021, 12:17:28 pm
Recently saw a house with a solar panel on the north-facing roof slope. There was none on the south-facing slope. Why?

Maybe they were holding the compass upside-down or didn't want to give the house prices cancer or something?

There's an argument for encouraging west-facing solar panels, in order to give greater output when the grid needs it most.
Or a compass like one of the two in this picture:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Uvr_T0daCiit5vCTX9t0z5rPDXXbeqQVikA7TXXJ2l8zlW70EPUxPu6B2CvdTnjRF4v46BMvdg0xu-u3FEpPmqOM3Dr_35r9gBbU2lFwMFED4JXfaZ2dYnncGLiKGVmB8195gVSPFKM=w2400)
(Bought the compass, walked out of shop, looked at sky, looked at compass, was pretty sure we don't keep the sun in the north at midday, walked back into shop, swapped it out)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bluebottle on 10 May, 2021, 10:28:33 pm
A propos compasses. I may or may not work for a teaching establishment that has a name that is synonymous with a certain meridian. There is a scupture on the lawn of said institution that is meant to be a sundial. Whoever installed it needed a bit more supervision- north points east.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 11 May, 2021, 08:42:59 am
A propos compasses. I may or may not work for a teaching establishment that has a name that is synonymous with a certain meridian. There is a scupture on the lawn of said institution that is meant to be a sundial. Whoever installed it needed a bit more supervision- north points east.

All responsibility for scientific accuracy evaporated at the word sculpture.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 11 May, 2021, 10:56:40 am
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weargraphene/gamma-all-season-graphene-infused-heated-jacket/description (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weargraphene/gamma-all-season-graphene-infused-heated-jacket/description)

Feast yourself on this buffet of bullshit.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pcolbeck on 11 May, 2021, 04:23:44 pm
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weargraphene/gamma-all-season-graphene-infused-heated-jacket/description (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/weargraphene/gamma-all-season-graphene-infused-heated-jacket/description)

Feast yourself on this buffet of bullshit.

Surely if its a great conductor of heat as they claim it cannot also be great insulation and keep you warm ....
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 11 May, 2021, 04:35:27 pm
Graphene is incredible stuff, but they're getting a wee bit carried away there.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 11 May, 2021, 06:47:48 pm
I particularly admired the marketing speak that claimed it was a superconductor, and that meant it would cool you in hot weather and warm you in cold weather.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 11 May, 2021, 07:02:55 pm
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/under-armour-womens-isochill-2in1-running-shorts

Quote
Made with ribbon-shaped Nylon fibres that work to quickly disperse heat, while titanium dioxide (the same ingredient they use in sun cream) pulls heat away from your body so you stay cool and perform for longer.

Where to start? Titanium dioxide is also used in toothpaste (although shortly to be banned by the EU for those still there). Does that mean it keeps your teeth clean while you're running?

Sam
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rafletcher on 11 May, 2021, 07:10:28 pm
Just slather on some Sudocream.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2021, 02:40:07 pm
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/under-armour-womens-isochill-2in1-running-shorts

Quote
Made with ribbon-shaped Nylon fibres that work to quickly disperse heat, while titanium dioxide (the same ingredient they use in sun cream) pulls heat away from your body so you stay cool and perform for longer.

Where to start? Titanium dioxide is also used in toothpaste (although shortly to be banned by the EU for those still there). Does that mean it keeps your teeth clean while you're running?

Never mind toothpaste (or paint, or anything else where it's used as a pigment), they've got the principle of operation completely wrong.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 May, 2021, 03:02:12 pm
Just slather on some Sudocream.

On your teeth? Ugh!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 May, 2021, 04:04:24 pm
Titanium white is a common artist's colour. I'm not sure whether it's also titanium dioxide but I'd presumed paint, sun screen and toothpaste all worked by reflectivity.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 May, 2021, 04:10:03 pm
It goes without saying (https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/doctor-warns-against-worrying-trend-21246148).

I'm intrigued by the man who 'accidentally used toothpaste as lube.'
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 May, 2021, 04:18:05 pm
Titanium white is a common artist's colour. I'm not sure whether it's also titanium dioxide but I'd presumed paint, sun screen and toothpaste all worked by reflectivity.

My wife was watching a programme about Georgian make-up the other day. Apparently, they used to paint their faces with Flake White, which I know of as a paint colour rather than a make-up product. It's made with lead and highly poisonous, and caused many deaths. But they continued using it despite being aware of the danger because it was such a pure white. The alternatives, such as titanium dioxide, have a slight yellowish tinge, especially in candlelight.

But yeah, titanium dioxide (and zinc oxide) is used in sunscreens because it reflects UV rays. I don't know about how it works in toothpaste though. Charcoal seems to be the favoured ingredient in toothpaste these days. Black stuff that makes your teeth whiter - it's like magic!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 May, 2021, 04:20:04 pm
It goes without saying (https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/doctor-warns-against-worrying-trend-21246148).

I'm intrigued by the man who 'accidentally used toothpaste as lube.'

I'm sure I've previously mentioned my schoolmate who once confessed to doing that. It was how he earned the nickname Colgate, which stuck with him for the rest of his school career (never let it be said that schoolboys lack imagination). I can't even remember what his real name was now.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2021, 04:34:01 pm
It goes without saying (https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/doctor-warns-against-worrying-trend-21246148).

I'm intrigued by the man who 'accidentally used toothpaste as lube.'

I'm sure I've previously mentioned my schoolmate who once confessed to doing that.

I once had reason to ask a room full of bisexuals.  About half had tried it.  Weirdos.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 May, 2021, 04:37:50 pm
I can think of many things that might have the properties of a reasonable tribological agent for intimate purposes, but toothpaste doesn't leap to the top of that list. I'd probably advise against, and not from personal experience, Swarfega. Growing up, we had tubs of that everywhere, mostly because my mother's brother-in-law worked in the factory and kept bringing it home.

That said: boys. I went to school with a young man who abused himself regularly with an Atari joystick. Everyone who'd been around his house to play Pitfall before that reveal had cause to need a lot of Swarfega. I was scrubbing for weeks. There was another guy who apparently liked to splash out on cacti. I have no idea. I like botany. I don't like it that much.

A friend and I once ate a tube of toothpaste in an attempt to hide the smell of Woodpecker. It didn't work, we just foamed at the mouth like we had rabies, and we smelled like minty sick.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2021, 04:39:02 pm
I can think of many things that might have the properties of a reasonable tribological agent for intimate purposes, but toothpaste doesn't leap to the top of that list. I'd probably advise against, and not from personal experience, Swarfega. Growing up, we had tubs of that everywhere, mostly because my mother's brother-in-law worked in the factory and kept bringing it home.

Again courtesy of the bisexuals: Swarfega is not safe for use with condoms.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 May, 2021, 04:46:59 pm
Is that the orange or green swarfega? Asking for a friend. (No. Just no. Aside from any rubber-dissolving or other unwanted chemical properties, both varieties just smell awful. And not in a pheromonally ripe way.) Truly the things some people enjoy are just strange.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 12 May, 2021, 04:57:25 pm
Never mind toothpaste (or paint, or anything else where it's used as a pigment), they've got the principle of operation completely wrong.

Well. Exactly. It's only marginally better than spiral water.

Sam
Title: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 12 May, 2021, 07:29:44 pm
I bet a dab of the toothpaste is cheaper than the “tingling lube” in boots though. However, judging by the way Miss Dan the Younger’s whitening toothpaste stains the electric toothbrush blue, I’d want to be careful about which one I chose.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 May, 2021, 07:39:54 pm
Kids these days, two parts Bonjela and one part Savlon should do the trick.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 12 May, 2021, 08:23:41 pm
Is that the orange or green swarfega? Asking for a friend.

I believe it was the green stuff.  Quite right too, because the orange one has lumpy bits.

Fortunately it was my suggestion for a comedy inappropriate lubricant to demonstrate in a safer sex workshop (unlike the toothpaste data, which was a literature review based on various independently conducted field trials).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 May, 2021, 08:25:59 pm
I only remember green. It used to be made somewhere near Derby. Giants tubs of the stuff. We had no idea what do with it all. I'm pretty sure my mother used it to shampoo us.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 12 May, 2021, 09:37:01 pm
I vaguely recall its origins lay in stUff invented for cleaning silk stockings.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 May, 2021, 09:49:28 pm
That's what Wikipedia says, and bless my recently cleaned silk stockings, it was invented by chap called Audley Bowdler Williamson, who was born in Heanor, Derbyshire. I am also a product of Heanor, Derbyshire, though yet to be renowned for my cleaning products. It does explain the vast tubs of the stuff that featured in my childhood though.

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 16 May, 2021, 12:56:34 am
Mystery foam polluting River Ouseburn sparks criminal probe (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57118780)

Quote from: the Beeb
The Environment Agency...asked people not to put anything containing chemicals down those drains.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 16 May, 2021, 08:26:47 am
Who’s running the EA these days, Gwyneth Paltrow?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bluebottle on 20 May, 2021, 11:37:28 pm
I didn't think putting chemicals down things was Gwynnie's forte, per se.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 27 May, 2021, 11:30:35 pm
It's not the science, it's the reporting (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/27/astronomers-create-largest-map-universe-dark-matter-einstein).

Quote from: The Grauniad
Dark Energy Survey (DES) team... have created a map that covers a quarter of the sky of the southern hemisphere (an eighth of the total night sky visible from Earth).

 ::-)

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 31 May, 2021, 07:57:06 pm
Quote
The move to an aluminum frame is particularly handy, as it lets the new ReMarkable tablet make use of magnetic accessories, such as snap-on cover

There is a person who never played with magnets as a child.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 01 June, 2021, 12:07:30 am
Quote
The move to an aluminum frame is particularly handy, as it lets the new ReMarkable tablet make use of magnetic accessories, such as snap-on cover

There is a person who never played with magnets as a child.

Given the numbers of children currently swallowing magnets sold as fake tongue piercings, this might not be entirely a bad thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57290239

Sam
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 09 June, 2021, 09:32:54 pm
Someone on the anbaric distascope used the unit cubic ton(ne) to describe a pile of rubble  ??? ::-)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 10 June, 2021, 08:04:54 am
That Texan Republican congressman who asked a high-up in the Forestry Service if they could fix climate change by adjusting the Moon's orbit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert-climate-change

Actually, that didn't make me cringe so much as splutter tea all over my breakfast this morning.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 10 June, 2021, 08:15:59 am
"Not our department. Our trees only grow to 250 feet. Ask NASA."
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Guy on 10 June, 2021, 09:23:30 am
That Texan Republican congressman who asked a high-up in the Forestry Service if they could fix climate change by adjusting the Moon's orbit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert-climate-change


 :o ??? :facepalm:

I'm not going to be able to do any more work today - my mind is boggling too much!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 10 June, 2021, 12:08:42 pm
That Texan Republican congressman who asked a high-up in the Forestry Service if they could fix climate change by adjusting the Moon's orbit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/09/texas-republican-louie-gohmert-climate-change

Actually, that didn't make me cringe so much as splutter tea all over my breakfast this morning.

Quote
“Well, if you figure out a way that you in the Forest Service can make that change, I’d like to know,” Gohmert added.

It's... Just. WHUT?

"Sorry, moon's not our department."

What did he think? That the trees could grow REALLY HIGH and push the moon?

Sam
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 10 June, 2021, 12:34:07 pm
Has anyone actually checked to see if Louie Gohmert noticeably distorts space-time in his immediate vicinity? Because that's gone well past depleted uranium or osmium-levels of density - I am actually almost impressed at just how dumb he is.

Mind you, Gohmert's always puts me in mind of how the banjo-picking kid in Deliverance might look like when he got older...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pumpkin on 10 June, 2021, 12:38:21 pm
But isnt the Earth flat? Surely he (or someone0 could drive to the moon? Of given he's from the South and may be religious cant God do something? God created the world in 7 days so climate change or orbit adjustment should be a cinch.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 10 June, 2021, 05:55:34 pm
Have you ever thought of injecting the Moon with bleach, y'all?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 10 June, 2021, 06:10:41 pm
The prospect of chlorinated chicken is nauseating enough, but chlorinated cheese?  Even Liz “Cheezgrrl” Truss would draw the line at that.

Wouldn’t she?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mllePB on 13 June, 2021, 07:00:26 pm
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 13 June, 2021, 07:35:31 pm
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)
Reads like they’d drain in between the dams too. I guess it would need some canals to get the river water out?

But, a land border with how many EU states? That’s an idea I think merits more research :demon:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 13 June, 2021, 11:14:08 pm
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)

I'm surprised that Bloody Stupid Johnson has not been touting this.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 13 June, 2021, 11:53:36 pm
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)

I'm surprised that Bloody Stupid Johnson has not been touting this.

Isn’t it a bit, well, FOREIGN?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 14 June, 2021, 12:09:47 am
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)

I'm surprised that Bloody Stupid Johnson has not been touting this.

Isn’t it a bit, well, FOREIGN?

He could call it the English Barrage or Dam Those Forrins or something. As long as Joanna Lumley's on board.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 14 June, 2021, 12:23:21 am
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)

I'm surprised that Bloody Stupid Johnson has not been touting this.

Isn’t it a bit, well, FOREIGN?

He could call it the English Barrage or Dam Those Forrins or something. As long as Joanna Lumley's on board.

Garden Dam?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 14 June, 2021, 08:11:02 am
What if climate change makes it  too difficult to save low lying places? A Dutch thought experiment is how about some big dams, Really BIG dams.
Northern European Enclosure Dam is the idea of damming up the north sea and the Channel.
https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need (https://www.sjoerdgroeskamp.com/need)

I'm surprised that Bloody Stupid Johnson has not been touting this.

Low lying being his speciality.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 18 June, 2021, 11:07:22 pm
Not exactly science, maybe more engineering, but this is from a comment on bikepacking.com:
Quote
Totally get it and it's interesting to think about. I bet as tires move toward non-pneumatic technologies, much more tuning and innovation could take place at the level of the sidewall technology.
"It" referring to an earlier comment about aspect ratio. But hang on – "as tyres move toward non-pneumatic technologies"?!?! I think he's probably talking about tubeless tyres – which are of course just as much pneumatic as tubed ones. Or is this actually suggesting "solid" (maybe foam filled?) tyres as a serious technology?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 18 June, 2021, 11:13:49 pm
Foam-filled tyres aren't technological enough.  What they need is blockchain.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: cygnet on 18 June, 2021, 11:19:55 pm
Not exactly science, maybe more engineering, but this is from a comment on bikepacking.com:
Quote
Totally get it and it's interesting to think about. I bet as tires move toward non-pneumatic technologies, much more tuning and innovation could take place at the level of the sidewall technology.
"It" referring to an earlier comment about aspect ratio. But hang on – "as tyres move toward non-pneumatic technologies"?!?! I think he's probably talking about tubeless tyres – which are of course just as much pneumatic as tubed ones. Or is this actually suggesting "solid" (maybe foam filled?) tyres as a serious technology?
It's the new inner tube.

https://www.vittoria.com/us/en/bike-accessories/tire-inserts (https://www.vittoria.com/us/en/bike-accessories/tire-inserts)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 June, 2021, 11:57:02 am
Quote
In the event of air-loss, the Vittoria Air-Liner Road system is designed for run-flat use.
So it's still fundamentally pneumatic. In addition, there was no mention of that (or any other) system in the "conversation" I read.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 19 June, 2021, 12:00:28 pm
Anyway, here's another that I read recently. It's from a short story by Hemingway. I can't find the exact quote now but he described a gun as "having a muzzle velocity of two tons". I think Hemingway knew about guns and this is probably the way gun people talk (with the actual mass of the bullet being a known factor).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 19 June, 2021, 04:34:38 pm
Get shot in a movie, find someone to stitch up entry and exit wounds and you're good to go. Everything in between is just ballistic gelatine, right?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 19 June, 2021, 07:23:20 pm
Get shot in a movie, find someone to stitch up entry and exit wounds and you're good to go. Everything in between is just ballistic gel, right?

Movie gunshots are only fatal when delivered by a very small gun with an improbably large amount of ammunition.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 19 June, 2021, 07:25:45 pm
Anyway, here's another that I read recently. It's from a short story by Hemingway. I can't find the exact quote now but he described a gun as "having a muzzle velocity of two tons".

I went for the novel and radical approach of using a search engine and Googled for "hemingway getting muzzle velocity units wrong (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hemingway+getting+muzzle+velocity+units+wrong&ei=OyvOYKCtILiejLsP5ba4qAE&oq=hemingway+getting+muzzle+velocity+units+wrong&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BQgAEJECOggIABCxAxCDAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAguELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QxwEQrwEQkQIQkwI6BAgAEEM6AggAOgUILhCxAzoECC4QQzoKCC4QsQMQgwEQQzoHCAAQsQMQQzoHCC4QsQMQQzoKCC4QsQMQQxCTAjoICC4QxwEQrwE6DQguELEDEIMBEEMQkwI6AgguOgUILhCTAjoGCAAQFhAeOggIABAWEAoQHjoFCCEQoAE6BAghEBU6BwghEAoQoAFQqvEBWLLoAmDd6gJoAHACeACAAbUDiAGeS5IBCjAuMjkuNC42LjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjgtrSZnqTxAhU4D2MBHWUbDhUQ4dUDCBE&uact=5)" - the third result on the first page was a PDF of Hemingway's short stories, wherein I established that Hemingway gets it wrong in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber".

Quote
Macomber did not know how the lion had felt before he started his rush, nor during it when the unbelievable smash of the .505 with a muzzle velocity of two tons had hit him in the mouth, nor what kept him coming after that, when the second ripping crash had smashed his hind quarters and he had come crawling on toward the crashing, blasting thing that had destroyed him

See page 28 of: https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/hemingway.pdf

Looking up .505 cartridges led me to the Wiki page on the .505 Gibbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.505_Gibbs), designed for hunting dangerous game in tropical environments:

Quote
The cartridge's claim to fame was its use by the fictional character, Robert Wilson, the hunter of Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Short_Happy_Life_of_Francis_Macomber)".

The wiki page for the cartridge suggests a typical muzzle velocity of 2,100-2,300 ft/s (640-700 m/s) - how the hell Hemingway gets from that to two tons is anyone's guess!

Quote
I think Hemingway knew about guns

Hmmm... if he did, he'd use the correct units of measurement.

Quote
and this is probably the way gun people talk

No, non, nein, nyet and fucking nope, they wouldn't if they knew what they were talking about. They'd use the correct unit of measurement.

Quote
(with the actual mass of the bullet being a known factor).

Mass only comes into it someone is talking about muzzle energy, which is the kinetic energy (Ek) of a projectile as it leaves the gun barrel. Kinetic energy would be measured either in foot-pounds force or in joules.

But as Ek = 0.5 x mv2, where m is mass and v is velocity, the fact that it is proportional to the square of the velocity should be a clue as to what is a bigger factor.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 19 June, 2021, 08:20:39 pm
The wiki page for the cartridge suggests a typical muzzle velocity of 2,100-2,300 ft/s (640-700 m/s) - how the hell Hemingway gets from that to two tons is anyone's guess!

I expect you have to divide by 12 Parsecs...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 19 June, 2021, 11:11:13 pm
It’s a bit late for maths, but could two tons be about the pressure that’s causing the velocity?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 20 June, 2021, 12:10:50 am
It’s a bit late for maths, but could two tons be about the pressure that’s causing the velocity?

What's pressure measured in, though?  ;)

I think Kim's closest to the mark with her Kessel Run reference, in that Hemingway either got his units mixed up, or he pulled the "two tons" figure from his backside.

And frankly, I've wasted enough time on this already...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 20 June, 2021, 12:35:15 am
The wiki page for the cartridge suggests a typical muzzle velocity of 2,100-2,300 ft/s (640-700 m/s) - how the hell Hemingway gets from that to two tons is anyone's guess!

I expect you have to divide by 12 Parsecs...

What’s that in double-decker buses/Olympic swimming pools/Waleses?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 20 June, 2021, 05:54:50 am
Anyway, here's another that I read recently. It's from a short story by Hemingway. I can't find the exact quote now but he described a gun as "having a muzzle velocity of two tons".

I went for the novel and radical approach of using a search engine and Googled for "hemingway getting muzzle velocity units wrong (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hemingway+getting+muzzle+velocity+units+wrong&ei=OyvOYKCtILiejLsP5ba4qAE&oq=hemingway+getting+muzzle+velocity+units+wrong&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BQgAEJECOggIABCxAxCDAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6CAguELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QxwEQrwEQkQIQkwI6BAgAEEM6AggAOgUILhCxAzoECC4QQzoKCC4QsQMQgwEQQzoHCAAQsQMQQzoHCC4QsQMQQzoKCC4QsQMQQxCTAjoICC4QxwEQrwE6DQguELEDEIMBEEMQkwI6AgguOgUILhCTAjoGCAAQFhAeOggIABAWEAoQHjoFCCEQoAE6BAghEBU6BwghEAoQoAFQqvEBWLLoAmDd6gJoAHACeACAAbUDiAGeS5IBCjAuMjkuNC42LjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjgtrSZnqTxAhU4D2MBHWUbDhUQ4dUDCBE&uact=5)" - the third result on the first page was a PDF of Hemingway's short stories, wherein I established that Hemingway gets it wrong in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber".

Quote
Macomber did not know how the lion had felt before he started his rush, nor during it when the unbelievable smash of the .505 with a muzzle velocity of two tons had hit him in the mouth, nor what kept him coming after that, when the second ripping crash had smashed his hind quarters and he had come crawling on toward the crashing, blasting thing that had destroyed him

See page 28 of: https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/hemingway.pdf

Looking up .505 cartridges led me to the Wiki page on the .505 Gibbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.505_Gibbs), designed for hunting dangerous game in tropical environments:

Quote
The cartridge's claim to fame was its use by the fictional character, Robert Wilson, the hunter of Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Short_Happy_Life_of_Francis_Macomber)".

The wiki page for the cartridge suggests a typical muzzle velocity of 2,100-2,300 ft/s (640-700 m/s) - how the hell Hemingway gets from that to two tons is anyone's guess!

Quote
I think Hemingway knew about guns

Hmmm... if he did, he'd use the correct units of measurement.

Quote
and this is probably the way gun people talk

No, non, nein, nyet and fucking nope, they wouldn't if they knew what they were talking about. They'd use the correct unit of measurement.

Quote
(with the actual mass of the bullet being a known factor).

Mass only comes into it someone is talking about muzzle energy, which is the kinetic energy (Ek) of a projectile as it leaves the gun barrel. Kinetic energy would be measured either in foot-pounds force or in joules.

But as Ek = 0.5 x mv2, where m is mass and v is velocity, the fact that it is proportional to the square of the velocity should be a clue as to what is a bigger factor.

When being taught to use a .303 at Bisley our army instructor said that the pressure inside the breech on discharge was 41 tons psi.  The thing certainly had a heck of kick.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 20 June, 2021, 07:35:14 am
It’s a bit late for maths, but could two tons be about the pressure that’s causing the velocity?

What's pressure measured in, though?  ;)

I think Kim's closest to the mark with her Kessel Run reference, in that Hemingway either got his units mixed up, or he pulled the "two tons" figure from his backside.

And frankly, I've wasted enough time on this already...
Fair point :)
Pressure “when” left for extra marks maybe?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 20 June, 2021, 09:58:34 am
What Spesh said. At least, that was the story I read. My sympathy is with the buffalo.

As for Hemingway knowing about guns, I was thinking that jargon will often use terms which are not technically correct but refer to additional assumed knowledge. Cyclists' "gear inches" might be a case in point. You don't need to know anything about guns to know that velocity isn't measured in tons. (I'm also faintly suspicious of the accuracy of Mrs Macomber's shooting, but as IKNAG I'll let it be... )
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 20 June, 2021, 11:46:27 am
This sort of confusion can be avoided by using unitless jargon.  Lighting techs seem to make it an art form: "4 250s at 100 on 3" sort of thing.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 20 June, 2021, 01:24:19 pm
I suspect those are assumed units rather than truly unitless...

As a writer, Hemingway was subject to Editors and even Translators as well as whatever Knowledge he may or not have had. "The unbelievable smash of the .505 with its 525-grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,300 feet per second" "No, Mr Hemingway, you can't write that! The readers won't like it! Let's just say a muzzle velocity of, ooh, four tons. That gets the idea across, don't you think?" "But..." "Too much? You're right, let's make it two tons."

And where do the Translators come in? Well, they don't so far, but I'm just wondering how they've translated it. Are those long, short or metric tons? Or have they mangled it into some other, maybe more sensible, unit, because all readers in language X are familiar with muzzle velocity in terms of goose wings per fortnight? And what are grains in any case?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 20 June, 2021, 01:30:12 pm
A grain is 64.79891 milligrams, as any fule kno ;)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 20 June, 2021, 02:31:14 pm
Reminds me of learning to drive, when the instructor told me gleefully that a rear-seat passenger without a seat-belt would hit me with a weight of seven tons in a crash.  Not a velocity, though.  Most people use velocity interchangeably with speed.  A ton used to mean a speed of 100 mph. Maybe it still does.  I've just been reading some Hemingway. You can tell.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 20 June, 2021, 03:08:28 pm
So it did. "Doing a ton on the motorway" and so on. Right, a mile is 5280 feet, x 200 so 200 mph is 105,600 feet per hour. Divide by 3,600 = 293.3 feet per second. Hmm, that's not right either, unless (very likely) my arithmetic's wrong.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 20 June, 2021, 04:14:08 pm
Seven point four foopball pitches per blue whale, then.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 23 June, 2021, 01:39:24 pm
Foyle's War last night was set just post war.  An amount of Urnanium was deemed to be missing from a thinly disguised Harwell. It (or "the isotopes") was transported around by the villains in a thermos flask.

The amount?
190 microgrammes.
That's a piece about <fx:back of envelope scribbling> 1 x 10^-11m^3. Or Very Tiny Indeed

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 23 June, 2021, 02:32:34 pm
Foyle's War last night was set just post war.  An amount of Urnanium was deemed to be missing from a thinly disguised Harwell. It (or "the isotopes") was transported around by the villains in a thermos flask.

The amount?
190 microgrammes.
That's a piece about <fx:back of envelope scribbling> 1 x 10^-11m^3. Or Very Tiny Indeed

11 cubic metres is A LOT. That would be 11 tonnes of water.

Clearly you use ascii notation differently from me

<fx: scientific calculator tapping>

Density of uranium is 19g per cubic centimetre or ml. 190 microgrammes (0.190/19) is 0.01ml. Random fact: average human tear volume is 6.2 +/- 2 µl, which means your uranium is <scribbles> about one and half tears. Give or take.

Sam
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 23 June, 2021, 02:48:52 pm
I read what Tim posted as 1x10-11 m3 - I'd guess he's using ^ to denote superscript as a quick'n' dirty subsitute for messing around with formatting tags.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 23 June, 2021, 02:49:17 pm
Foyle's War last night was set just post war.  An amount of Urnanium was deemed to be missing from a thinly disguised Harwell. It (or "the isotopes") was transported around by the villains in a thermos flask.

The amount?
190 microgrammes.
That's a piece about <fx:back of envelope scribbling> 1 x 10^-11m^3. Or Very Tiny Indeed

11 cubic metres is A LOT. That would be 11 tonnes of water.

Clearly you use ascii notation differently from me

<fx: scientific calculator tapping>

Density of uranium is 19g per cubic centimetre or ml. 190 microgrammes (0.190/19) is 0.01ml. Random fact: average human tear volume is 6.2 +/- 2 µl, which means your uranium is <scribbles> about one and half tears. Give or take.

Sam
I more likely got lost in a maze of exponentials. Although I'd argue that 190 microgrammes isn't 0.19g, as your calcs suggest. Isn't it 0.00019g?, so the volume is 0.00001ml. Maybe.     
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ravenbait on 23 June, 2021, 02:59:08 pm
I more likely got lost in a maze of exponentials. Although I'd argue that 190 microgrammes isn't 0.19g, as your calcs suggest. Isn't it 0.00019g?, so the volume is 0.00001ml. Maybe.   

You are correct. I was distracted by the dog's farts (she has a dodgy tummy and yet insists on being in my office. I am dreading having to shoo her out in the event of a digestive incident).

So that's.... 0.1µl? It's too hot to think today. So you would fit 60 times the aforementioned amount of Foyle's uranium in a single human tear.

A thermos does seem overkill. Unless Foyle's uranium is related to red mercury, and is a special kind of uranium. Probably glows fluorescein green, stains the skin, and makes red blood cells look suspiciously like spirochaetes.

Sam
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 23 June, 2021, 04:33:00 pm
Yeabut the first rule of fissile material club is that you don't leave things lying around where they can occupy small volumes.  Normally that's in order to prevent unexpected criticality incidents, but it seems like equally sage advice if it's small enough that it risks being lost forever in the piles of the carpet should someone sneeze while handling it.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 23 June, 2021, 07:25:51 pm
I hope the tea lady uses a nice big urn, and doesn't make off with the flask by mistake, though at least a flask isn't going to get tidied into the bin by the cleaners like a small empty tin might.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 01 August, 2021, 12:55:09 pm
Lost in translation?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51350637885_881e2893f1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2meFrBB)
IMG_8611_01 (https://flic.kr/p/2meFrBB) by The Pingus (https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_pingus/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: SteveC on 01 August, 2021, 12:58:38 pm
Our kitchen scales will weigh in ml. I've always assumed they mean 'of water' and that it's just the same readings as g.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 30 August, 2021, 06:11:03 pm
From an E bike manufacturer's website:
Quote
This rear-drive motor, which is compatible with the disc brake, has a rated power of 750W and Max Power  of 1500W (48V*30ah= 1440W),
<Boggle>
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 30 August, 2021, 08:21:39 pm
[OT] Some sauces give contents in both ml and grams.

I use disparities to guess the fat and sugar content...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Wowbagger on 30 August, 2021, 08:22:22 pm
[OT] Some sauces give contents in both ml and grams.

I use disparities to guess the fat and sugar content...

Do you have a sauce for that?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 September, 2021, 02:24:36 pm
Quote
[redacted] is spearheading the new era of quantum health and healing. However, Scalar Energy is nothing new. It is as old as the universe itself because Scalar Energy is the quantum energy emitted from all the stars of the universe including our own star - the sun. Many renown scientists of the old days pioneered this research including James Clerk Maxwell, Nikola Tesla and Dr. T. Galen Hieronymus to name only a few. Today, [redacted] has developed a device for harnessing Scalar Energy, coding the light with health and healing instructions and administering it to a photograph of a person, animal or plant. People are experiencing the benefits of this remote therapy by way of quantum entanglement. We offer a FREE 15-day trial (no credit/debit card required). No obligation! See if this works for YOU. Go to [website] upload your photograph and get started!

Names removed because this is an advertiser so I need to be careful what I say! But really, this is even worse than homeopathy.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 10 September, 2021, 02:38:32 pm
Healing by photograph! It's like voodoo dolls, but with wonderful positive energy!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 10 September, 2021, 02:42:16 pm
"[redacted] has developed a device for harnessing Scalar Energy, coding the light with health and healing instructions and administering it to a photograph of a person, animal or plant. People are experiencing the benefits of this remote therapy by way of quantum entanglement. "

I'm not a quantum physicist, but something tells me that this sure as hell isn't how quantum entanglement works.

There is more chance of something happening to the original picture file than this sub-pseudoscience (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scalar_wave) actually producing any health benefits, and even then, we are talking about the cube root of sweet knack-all.

It's only a matter of time before some woo-merchant rips off one of the running gags from Robert Rankin's Armageddon trilogy and starts wibbling about the "trans-perambulation of pseudo-cosmic antimatter".  ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 September, 2021, 03:16:58 pm
Or even rip off the Doctor Who gag and start wibbling about "reversing the polarity".

You'll be pleased to know I've told the publisher I don't think we should be carrying this stuff as it will undermine our credentials. Trouble is, the board tend to only be interested in the bottom line so we'll probably have to accept it.  ::-)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 10 September, 2021, 03:22:27 pm
Can you add a statement in the publication saying something like "All text and viewpoints in advertisements is the property and responsibility of the advertiser. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication is not a recommendation by the publisher."
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 September, 2021, 03:29:02 pm
Can you add a statement in the publication saying something like "All text and viewpoints in advertisements is the property and responsibility of the advertiser. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication is not a recommendation by the publisher."

We do already, but in this instance they want an advertorial, ie an ad masquerading as editorial (for which we charge a lot more than a basic display ad).

To be fair, I shouldn't prejudge what management will say - we have in the past pushed back on ads that don't align with our brand values.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 10 September, 2021, 03:34:42 pm
I noticed that "We are cycling" Cycle mag now labels its advertorials as such.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 10 September, 2021, 03:39:16 pm
Can you add a statement in the publication saying something like "All text and viewpoints in advertisements is the property and responsibility of the advertiser. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication is not a recommendation by the publisher."

We do already, but in this instance they want an advertorial, ie an ad masquerading as editorial (for which we charge a lot more than a basic display ad).

To be fair, I shouldn't prejudge what management will say - we have in the past pushed back on ads that don't align with our brand values.
Oh I hate those damn things. So misleading.

Yes, charge them like they were a flat Telsa.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: TheLurker on 10 September, 2021, 03:41:38 pm
Quote from: mrcharly-YHT
Quote from: citoyen
Quote from: mrcharly-YHT
Can you add a statement in the publication saying something like "All text and viewpoints in advertisements is the property and responsibility of the advertiser. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication is not a recommendation by the publisher."

We do already, but in this instance they want an advertorial, ie an ad masquerading as editorial (for which we charge a lot more than a basic display ad).

To be fair, I shouldn't prejudge what management will say - we have in the past pushed back on ads that don't align with our brand values.
Oh I hate those damn things. So misleading.

Yes, charge them like they were a flat Telsa.
And then dob them in to the ASA?  :demon:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 September, 2021, 03:55:44 pm
I noticed that "We are cycling" Cycle mag now labels its advertorials as such.

Every publication I've ever worked on has labelled advertorials clearly as such. You're undermining yourself if you don't.

Health products are quite strictly regulated as regards what you can claim - there's all sorts of approved formulaic wording and advertisers can get very antsy if you veer even slightly from that in a promotional piece. We sometimes run promotions for homeopathy products (because they pay well) but are always careful not to say that they actually do anything!

And then dob them in to the ASA?  :demon:

In all seriousness, that's not a bad idea.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 10 September, 2021, 04:05:47 pm
Any paid-for content has to be declared under the ASA's CAP code, it's also covered by legislation (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008).

Health claims are a lot more sensitive, of course, and you can't claim any specific benefits.

That said, I believe in anything that's quantum.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: grams on 10 September, 2021, 04:08:38 pm
Healing by photograph! It's like voodoo dolls, but with wonderful positive energy!

If the process required real photographs rather than uploading a digital one I would find it at least twice as believable.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 September, 2021, 04:50:05 pm
Any paid-for content has to be declared under the ASA's CAP code, it's also covered by legislation (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008).

I assumed it was covered by law, but tbh, I couldn't remember for sure and CBA to look it up. That probably makes me unqualified to do my job!

Quote
That said, I believe in anything that's quantum.

Hell yeah!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 10 September, 2021, 04:54:11 pm
A Scientologist: Did somebody say "quantum"?  :D

eBay: Special Edition "Diamond Dust" Mark Super VII Quantum E-Meter (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/173874138397)

Quote from: fleaBay
Listed in category:
Everything Else > Religious Products & Supplies > Educational Materials

Er... um... "educational"?  ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 10 September, 2021, 06:23:28 pm
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 10 September, 2021, 06:37:23 pm
We sometimes run promotions for homeopathy products (because they pay well) but are always careful not to say that they actually do anything!

Do you actually have to mention the name of the product or are the manufacturers willing to pay you because you have used a couple of its constituent letters randomly scattered throughout the article?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 13 September, 2021, 03:35:54 pm
We sometimes run promotions for homeopathy products (because they pay well) but are always careful not to say that they actually do anything!

Do you actually have to mention the name of the product or are the manufacturers willing to pay you because you have used a couple of its constituent letters randomly scattered throughout the article?

No no.

They have to remove the letters spelling out the name of the product.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 13 September, 2021, 04:20:26 pm
 ;D

You people crease me up.

What we actually do is put the article about their product within a bigger article. Then put some of that article into another article. Then put some of that article into another article.

If we keep doing this, we eventually end up with a highly effective promotional piece.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: TheLurker on 13 September, 2021, 09:41:31 pm
Must save an absolute fortune in ink as well.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 13 September, 2021, 09:58:32 pm
Must save an absolute fortune in ink as well.

Especially if the final dilution has reduced the "QuAnTuM sCaLaR hEaLiNg" woo to a rogue double-space in an otherwise unimpeachable peer-reviewed article on something which actually works. :demon:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 30 September, 2021, 10:23:11 pm
My wife received a free gift of makeup guaranteed to reduce wrinkles by -20%. I refused to let her use it!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 30 September, 2021, 10:28:58 pm
20% more wrinkles? Don't blame you.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pcolbeck on 30 September, 2021, 10:41:44 pm
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?

Particles aren't in two places at once they are in an every possible place they could be. And they aren't actually particles they are vibrations in a field. They act like particles when they finally interact with each other.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 30 September, 2021, 11:08:40 pm
It’s still woo though.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Efrogwr on 01 October, 2021, 10:28:13 am
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?

Particles aren't in two places at once they are in an every possible place they could be. And they aren't actually particles they are vibrations in a field. They act like particles when they finally interact with each other.


After reading that brain-bender I need to lie down in a darkened room!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 01 October, 2021, 10:48:53 am
I'm just practicing aligning my particles to empty spaces so I can walk though walls.

I'll let you know when my head stops hurting
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 01 October, 2021, 11:21:23 am
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?

Particles aren't in two places at once they are in an every possible place they could be. And they aren't actually particles they are vibrations in a field. They act like particles when they finally interact with each other.

Basically, they aren't particles or waves, they're just metaphors for how they behave under specified conditions (similarly with spin, colour charge and other fancy aspects of quantum unreality). We just don't have an understanding or description of what they really are or even if they really are. It's all rather complicated. Wait till you learn about the fact a lot of matter is made out of things that only exist virtually.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: PhilO on 01 October, 2021, 11:27:56 am
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?

Particles aren't in two places at once they are in an every possible place they could be. And they aren't actually particles they are vibrations in a field. They act like particles when they finally interact with each other.

So they are in two places at once - and also everywhere else.  Just like a four-legged table has three legs... and a fourth.  ;)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Efrogwr on 01 October, 2021, 12:13:51 pm
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 11 - When Quantum Goes Woo (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b051ryq8)

Quote
Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by Bad Science author, Ben Goldacre, Professor of Particle Physics at Manchester University, Jeff Forshaw, and comedian Sara Pascoe. They'll be looking at why quantum physics, in particular, seems to attract some of the more fringe elements of pseudoscience and alternative medicine, and whether there is anything about the frankly weird quantum behaviour of particles, like the ability to seemingly be in two places at once, that really can be applied to the human condition. When spiritual healers and gurus talk about our own quantum energy and the power of quantum healing, is it simply a metaphor, or is there more to this esoteric branch of science that we could all learn from?

Particles aren't in two places at once they are in an every possible place they could be. And they aren't actually particles they are vibrations in a field. They act like particles when they finally interact with each other.

Basically, they aren't particles or waves, they're just metaphors for how they behave under specified conditions (similarly with spin, colour charge and other fancy aspects of quantum unreality). We just don't have an understanding or description of what they really are or even if they really are. It's all rather complicated. Wait till you learn about the fact a lot of matter is made out of things that only exist virtually.



I was just starting to pull myself together; then I read this...

The wave/particle conundrum has fascined me for half a century.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Efrogwr on 01 October, 2021, 12:19:11 pm
... and now for a real post!

this seems to me (Fine Art graduate) to be the best thread for this, but I suspect that it's a mathematical/topological thing.

Clothes made of wonder fabrics with (first) three way stretch,  and, now four(!) way stretch.

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pcolbeck on 01 October, 2021, 12:47:08 pm
The wave/particle conundrum has fascined me for half a century.

There isn't really a conundrum. Waves are a useful approximation of the behaviour of particles at a large scale. Lots of photons emitting from a source behave like a wave but a single photon doesn't.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 01 October, 2021, 12:54:43 pm
Ah, but that's not really true. A single-photon does have wave properties. The dual slit experiment simply forces photons to behave as waves or particles. It's the nature of the observation that determines whether we see a wave or a particle (whereas the reality is probably neither, and certainly not something we have a description for).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 01 October, 2021, 01:25:47 pm
Basically, they aren't particles or waves, they're just metaphors for how they behave under specified conditions (similarly with spin, colour charge and other fancy aspects of quantum unreality). We just don't have an understanding or description of what they really are or even if they really are. It's all rather complicated. Wait till you learn about the fact a lot of matter is made out of things that only exist virtually.
Strictly speaking surely, if we don't know what they are (and I agree that we don't), we can't really say what they aren't either. They behave like both particles (things with very specific locations and dimensions) and waves (coherent phenomena but spread out over considerable areas) at the same time is about as near as we can get. And, as you say, they do that even if you reduce the amount of light so much that there is only one photon (particle) present. The sea is lots of molecules (particles) making waves together, of course; it's as though you reduced the entire ocean to one molecule of water, and still got the faint marks of waves left on the beach.

Not that that is remotely helpful in picturing what they might be!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 01 October, 2021, 02:33:38 pm
Indeed, the closer you look at reality, the odder it becomes.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 October, 2021, 02:56:27 pm
Especially before lunchtime.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 01 October, 2021, 04:48:15 pm
Quarks are weird. Don't tell them, but they are.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 01 October, 2021, 06:13:16 pm
Especially the strange ones.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Lightning Phil on 01 October, 2021, 06:15:28 pm
They do have an up side though
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 01 October, 2021, 06:16:47 pm
I could get down with that.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 01 October, 2021, 06:26:49 pm
I've always found the concept rather charming.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 01 October, 2021, 09:25:22 pm
I've always found quarks to be a bit cheesey
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 01 October, 2021, 09:30:06 pm
They tryst with their virtual selves by exchanging gluons. If that's not a euphemism, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 01 October, 2021, 09:34:00 pm
I've always found the concept rather charming.

Very good!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pcolbeck on 02 October, 2021, 11:23:43 am
https://youtu.be/dPRsdQIsqIk
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 02 October, 2021, 07:45:26 pm
I've always found quarks to be a bit cheesey

I can't top that.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 11 October, 2021, 10:33:27 pm
Negotiations are under way to offload the estimated 1.1m barrels of crude oil that remains onboard the FSO Safer, which has been deteriorating by the month since it was abandoned in 2017. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/11/rotting-red-sea-oil-tanker-could-leave-8m-people-without-water)

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 October, 2021, 09:42:36 am
I read that and thought what an ironic name (though I know it's Arabic and just coincidentally looks like English, doesn't even sound the same). Anywayz, what's cringeworthy about "deteriorating by the month"? After all, as someone's sig line says, "rust never sleeps".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 12 October, 2021, 10:18:20 am
Negotiations are under way to offload the estimated 1.1m barrels of crude oil that remains onboard the FSO Safer, which has been deteriorating by the month since it was abandoned in 2017. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/11/rotting-red-sea-oil-tanker-could-leave-8m-people-without-water)

 :facepalm:
I think that belongs in the "completely superfluous words thread".
What an enormous stuff up.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 13 October, 2021, 03:36:28 pm
Listening to Hancock's "The Radio Ham" on BBC Sounds today, The Lad Himself says he's broadcasting on the short wave band at 10.4m at 250 mega cycles per second.

Speed of propagation is wavelength x frequency, so 10.4 x 250 x (10^6) m/s = . Or 2.6 x (10^9) m/s. Say 8.7 x the speed of light.

By great good fortune my Scouts are taking part in the Jamboree on the Air this weekend. As well as finding out what the weather is doing in Tokyo, I'll see if they can work out Galton and Simpson's error.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: davelodwig on 13 October, 2021, 04:35:25 pm
Listening to Hancock's "The Radio Ham" on BBC Sounds today, The Lad Himself says he's broadcasting on the short wave band at 10.4m at 250 mega cycles per second.

Speed of propagation is wavelength x frequency, so 10.4 x 250 x (10^6) m/s = . Or 2.6 x (10^9) m/s. Say 8.7 x the speed of light.

By great good fortune my Scouts are taking part in the Jamboree on the Air this weekend. As well as finding out what the weather is doing in Tokyo, I'll see if they can work out Galton and Simpson's error.

I'm running a station here in the Cotswolds, GB0GS it's a short contact but do listen out for us.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: matthew on 13 October, 2021, 05:44:18 pm
Listening to Hancock's "The Radio Ham" on BBC Sounds today, The Lad Himself says he's broadcasting on the short wave band at 10.4m at 250 mega cycles per second.

Speed of propagation is wavelength x frequency, so 10.4 x 250 x (10^6) m/s = . Or 2.6 x (10^9) m/s. Say 8.7 x the speed of light.

By great good fortune my Scouts are taking part in the Jamboree on the Air this weekend. As well as finding out what the weather is doing in Tokyo, I'll see if they can work out Galton and Simpson's error.

I'm running a station here in the Cotswolds, GB0GS it's a short contact but do listen out for us.

We will be joining in with my troop Saturday afternoon and through to Sunday morning. I think we may have a radio ham for some of Saturday afternoon but I am not sure. Edit to add. Yes we do call sign G2ML. Jid 5GB26C
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hatler on 13 October, 2021, 08:06:32 pm
I read that and thought what an ironic name (though I know it's Arabic and just coincidentally looks like English, doesn't even sound the same). Anywayz, what's cringeworthy about "deteriorating by the month"? After all, as someone's sig line says, "rust never sleeps".
[Puts hand up.]   Me sir !! 
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 October, 2021, 09:35:15 pm
I read that and thought what an ironic name (though I know it's Arabic and just coincidentally looks like English, doesn't even sound the same). Anywayz, what's cringeworthy about "deteriorating by the month"? After all, as someone's sig line says, "rust never sleeps".
[Puts hand up.]   Me sir !!
:thumbsup:
rubigo numquam dormit nec stertit
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 November, 2021, 09:54:33 am
This is old but it came up in a search related to something else I’m working on and it’s too good not to share…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noel-edmonds-says-death-doesn-t-exist-and-electrosmog-more-deadly-ebola-or-aids-10439536.html

Frankly, I would believe anything said by a man with such luxuriant hair.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jurek on 10 November, 2021, 12:52:26 pm
This is old but it came up in a search related to something else I’m working on and it’s too good not to share…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noel-edmonds-says-death-doesn-t-exist-and-electrosmog-more-deadly-ebola-or-aids-10439536.html

Frankly, I would believe anything said by a man with such luxuriant hair.
Umm... That story is from August 2015...... - not that age makes it any less batshit crazy.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 November, 2021, 02:36:34 pm
This is old but it came up in a search related to something else I’m working on and it’s too good not to share…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noel-edmonds-says-death-doesn-t-exist-and-electrosmog-more-deadly-ebola-or-aids-10439536.html

Frankly, I would believe anything said by a man with such luxuriant hair.
Umm... That story is from August 2015...... - not that age makes it any less batshit crazy.

Yes, that's why I started my post with 'This is old...'

To be fair, Noel seems to have given up the mumbo-jumbo these days - he now lives permanently in New Zealand, where he runs a free online radio station. (Which is not to say that he no longer believes all that guff, but that he's concentrating his efforts on doing what he's good at.)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jurek on 10 November, 2021, 02:44:13 pm
Ah!
I neglected to spot your first three words...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 10 November, 2021, 02:45:27 pm
Ah!
Failed to spot your first three words...

No doubt you were distracted by the sheer luxuriousness of Noel's bouffant mane.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 10 November, 2021, 06:25:43 pm
Ah!
Failed to spot your first three words...

No doubt you were distracted by the sheer luxuriousness of Noel's bouffant mane.

Probably been to that guy who's been chatting up Wowbagger on FriendFace. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=117092.msg2672635#msg2672635)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 April, 2022, 03:54:26 pm
Just working on an interview feature with a self-styled "vegan and cruelty-free make-up artist". She was doing fine until this bit...

Quote
Stress and anxiety can have a detrimental effect on our skin. I think we can all attest to that over the last two years. Look at Dr Masaru Emoto’s work on the study of how emotions affect the molecular formation of water, and we’re 60% water. Being a happy human keeps us feeling and looking healthy.

You what?

I looked up "Dr" Masaru Emoto. For a start, he's not a doctor, he's a Japanese businessman. Good start.

Apparently, he's responsible for a work entitled The Hidden Messages In Water. Quoth Wikipedia: "His conjecture evolved over the years, and his early work revolved around pseudo-scientific hypotheses that water could react to positive thoughts and words and that polluted water could be cleaned through prayer and positive visualization."

 :facepalm:

I'm being made redundant in a few weeks, which is obviously a bit of a shitter, but I really won't be sorry to see the back of crap like this.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 April, 2022, 04:01:42 pm
It gets better...

Quote
Good quality shilajit, CBD and lion’s mane are my desert island supplements. Shilajit is a plant resin and one of the most potent antioxidants there is, so it can help protects cells from damage. I studied CBD and became a certified expert, so I’m a big advocate. It can help with sleep issues, depression and anxiety. It’s also neuro protective, anti-bacterial, anti-convulsant, anti-nausea and great for skin health. I take lion’s mane mushroom supplement for focus, clarity and brain health.

Shilajit is basically decomposed plants. Popular in ayurvedic medicine. Nuff said. The best science to support its use says that it's safe - in much the same way that homeopathic remedies are safe, I guess. "More clinical trials are needed."

As for the guff about CBD, we literally can't print that for legal reasons. Certified expert indeed. FFS.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 12 April, 2022, 04:31:06 pm
That's some prime natural fertiliser... ;D

No chance of you slipping "transperambulation of psuedo-cosmic anti-matter" (a Robert Rankin running gag) into the piece somehow? :demon:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 12 April, 2022, 04:50:34 pm
Would someone who believes that " emotions affect the molecular formation of water" really not think "transperambulation of psuedo-cosmic anti-matter" was serious?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 12 April, 2022, 05:03:19 pm
Apparently, he's responsible for a work entitled The Hidden Messages In Water. Quoth Wikipedia: "His conjecture evolved over the years, and his early work revolved around pseudo-scientific hypotheses that water could react to positive thoughts and words and that polluted water could be cleaned through prayer and positive visualization."

That sounds suspiciously like the psychomagnotheric slime from Ghostbusters 2.  They made a toaster dance with that stuff!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 12 April, 2022, 05:21:10 pm

I'm being made redundant in a few weeks
Arse. Sorry to hear this.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 12 April, 2022, 05:39:07 pm

I'm being made redundant in a few weeks
Arse. Sorry to hear this.

Me too! But thanks. It's been on the cards for a while, but I thought the job might last until the end of the current production cycle (which would have been September). Anyway, it's something I've become accustomed to (third time inside 10 years) so I'm becoming accustomed to it.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 12 April, 2022, 05:54:43 pm
Bugger. Hope you find something else soon.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 12 April, 2022, 06:35:02 pm
Someone phone the Woo Police!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hatler on 12 April, 2022, 08:23:32 pm
I'm being made redundant in a few weeks, which is obviously a bit of a shitter, but I really won't be sorry to see the back of crap like this.

Bugger. Sorry to hear this.  Anything in the pipeline ?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 12 April, 2022, 08:41:36 pm
Come, be welcomed into the clammy hug of scholarly publishing. We will let you keep your soul. Admittedly as a sort of mistreated pet.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 21 May, 2022, 11:58:32 am
More Hancock.

When The Lad Himself goes to donate blood, he gets told he's AB negative. Good. Then shortly afterwards he's told he's Rhesus positive. No! Galton and Simpson, what were you thinking!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rr on 23 May, 2022, 05:05:21 pm
In e2v job advert.
freezing the atom down to 0° Kelvin.
The laws of thermodynamics and the unit police would like a word.

Sent from my motorola edge 20 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: fd3 on 23 May, 2022, 09:29:48 pm
That made my head hurt.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 23 May, 2022, 09:36:04 pm
Yes, ice cream at that temperature can cause a severe sinus headache.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 24 May, 2022, 10:28:25 am
It were 0°A when I were a lad.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 24 May, 2022, 10:56:40 am
Amount of silt to be dredged given in cubic tons. um.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 30 May, 2022, 02:01:43 pm
Quote
0.33kW of instantaneous power, enough to briefly sustain around 750 homes

Blimey, those are energy-efficient homes.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220511-can-gravity-batteries-solve-our-energy-storage-problems (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220511-can-gravity-batteries-solve-our-energy-storage-problems)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2022, 05:52:19 pm
It's now saying 250kW, which seems more reasonable.  In as much as "sustaining homes" is a useful measure of anything.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 30 May, 2022, 06:01:13 pm
What's that in 1-bar electric fires :demon:

["use of the bar is Considered Harmful" - Ed.]
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 30 May, 2022, 08:20:16 pm
It's now saying 250kW, which seems more reasonable.  In as much as "sustaining homes" is a useful measure of anything.

So enough to turn the lights on in each house and keep a fridge running.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 30 May, 2022, 09:08:35 pm
It's now saying 250kW, which seems more reasonable.  In as much as "sustaining homes" is a useful measure of anything.

So enough to turn the lights on in each house and keep a fridge running.

*peers at monthly electrosity stats*

Power: Average:488.64W Max:5990.20W Min:0.00W  (Ignore that last one, the monitoring got unplugged.)

So yeah.  Not enough to keep our house running.  But we're heavy users with a lot of computer equipment, I can imagine many people are well under a third of a kW.  No idea how many really heavy users there are (big families, storage heaters, hot tubs, etc.), and where the national average might be.  Possibly too much to hope that they've got that figure from somewhere sensible...

ETA: I note Ripple are using 2900kWh/year as their 'medium' average consumption (https://rippleenergy.com/how-it-works).  That's 331.1W.

Obviously peak demand complicates things.  But it's not like you're really trying to power a village with an electric crane anyway...

On the gripping hand, unless you're comparing electricity bills, who has an intuitive sense of how much power a typical home uses on average?  At least 1-bar electric fires are meaningful.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 30 May, 2022, 09:56:10 pm
In addition to long division, to this day I can't my times-tables either. I can't say the omission of either has really held me back. Of course, if I'm ever in a potentially cataclysmic situation where the fate of the world is in my hands and only way to divert the comet or defuse the gigatonic nuclear bomb that's about to shatter a tectonic plate is for me to instantly respond to what's five sevens and the how many 42s are there in 53,256, you may refer me to this post.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Feanor on 30 May, 2022, 11:01:58 pm
Yea, even as someone who can do Hard Maths, mental arithmetic is not a Thing I can Do, nor need to do.

The only feat of mental arithmetic I can do at party-grade is the conversion of miles to Km.
I can mentally do the x1.6 in my head, and produce an answer to 1 decimal place.

There is a trick, of course.
Instead of trying to multiply by 1.6, multiply by 16 then divide by 10.
Both of these are much simpler operations.

Multiplying by 16 is simply doubling four times.
That's not so hard mentally.
Then, dividing by 10 is just a decimal point shift.

So, for example, 12 miles:
Double four times: 12 > 24, 48, 96, 192
Divide by 10.
Answer is 19.2k



Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 31 May, 2022, 05:44:14 am
Or add a half and the add a tenth

12 + 6 + 1.2 = 19.2
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 31 May, 2022, 08:24:53 am
The only feat of mental arithmetic I can do at party-grade is the conversion of miles to Km.
I can mentally do the x1.6 in my head, and produce an answer to 1 decimal place.

There is a trick, of course.

Being a UK-based audaxer, converting miles to kilometres has become second nature. I don't even need to do the sums any more.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: felstedrider on 31 May, 2022, 08:46:19 am
It's now saying 250kW, which seems more reasonable.  In as much as "sustaining homes" is a useful measure of anything.

So enough to turn the lights on in each house and keep a fridge running.

*peers at monthly electrosity stats*

Power: Average:488.64W Max:5990.20W Min:0.00W  (Ignore that last one, the monitoring got unplugged.)

So yeah.  Not enough to keep our house running.  But we're heavy users with a lot of computer equipment, I can imagine many people are well under a third of a kW.  No idea how many really heavy users there are (big families, storage heaters, hot tubs, etc.), and where the national average might be.  Possibly too much to hope that they've got that figure from somewhere sensible...

ETA: I note Ripple are using 2900kWh/year as their 'medium' average consumption (https://rippleenergy.com/how-it-works).  That's 331.1W.

Obviously peak demand complicates things.  But it's not like you're really trying to power a village with an electric crane anyway...

On the gripping hand, unless you're comparing electricity bills, who has an intuitive sense of how much power a typical home uses on average?  At least 1-bar electric fires are meaningful.

Ofgem use 2,900kWh pa.

They brought it down from 3,200 not long ago as general domestic consumption had dropped.   We use about that but we're not heavy consumers of power.   Gas is a different story.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 31 May, 2022, 09:35:20 am
Pretty sure I got a multiple drubbing for not learning my times-tables. I was a bit of a thicko so I suspect I didn't put much effort into the process (to be fair, I never had the aptitude for numbers, I have a crayon-based mentality). It was the rote thing, you had to chant them, like you were trying to summon some lower-order maths demon into the classroom. Possibly we did, I'm not sure as by that point I had been despatched to the punishment desk in the corridor.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 31 May, 2022, 01:34:25 pm
My memory is of "bond tests" (in a standard state primary school). We'd be given sheets of ten (I think, may have been twenty) multiplications, and race to be the first to complete the sheet correctly. The aim - and it seems, well over 50 years later, to have worked - was to get to a point where we knew anything up to 12*12 without really thinking about it.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: matthew on 31 May, 2022, 05:17:41 pm
In addition to long division, to this day I can't my times-tables either. I can't say the omission of either has really held me back. Of course, if I'm ever in a potentially cataclysmic situation where the fate of the world is in my hands and only way to divert the comet or defuse the gigatonic nuclear bomb that's about to shatter a tectonic plate is for me to instantly respond to what's five sevens and the how many 42s are there in 53,256, you may refer me to this post.

1,268  ;)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2022, 06:55:51 pm
The aim - and it seems, well over 50 years later, to have worked - was to get to a point where we knew anything up to 12*12 without really thinking about it.

Stopping at 12 always seemed a bit daft.  Especially given how much time I spend counting in 16s[1].


[1] The great thing about computers is they save you from having to do lots of tedious arithmetic.  Allegedly.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 31 May, 2022, 07:08:58 pm
Don't think maths had quite caught up at that point. A few years later, though, I was doing bases in arithmetic. My Dad, a chartered engineer, had to work hard to catch up with the "new maths" so that he could help with my homework.

Roll on a couple of decades and I, with a physics degree, was struggling with what my kids were doing in their school maths.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: orienteer on 31 May, 2022, 07:16:23 pm
The aim - and it seems, well over 50 years later, to have worked - was to get to a point where we knew anything up to 12*12 without really thinking about it.

Stopping at 12 always seemed a bit daft.  Especially given how much time I spend counting in 16s[1].

12 times table important for working in £, shillings and pence. I still have it imprinted in my mind that a third of a pound is 6s/8d. A third in new pence is impossible!


[1] The great thing about computers is they save you from having to do lots of tedious arithmetic.  Allegedly.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 31 May, 2022, 07:17:30 pm
I've mentioned before how I thought that new pence were the plastic ones you had in school for maths lessons...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: TheLurker on 31 May, 2022, 08:12:41 pm
Quote from: drossall
Don't think maths had quite caught up at that point. A few years later, though, I was doing bases in arithmetic.
Odd thing.  Early primary 7, Scotland.  I'm doing simple binary arithmetic and using the metric system.  Six months later in an English primary school I'm trying to work out WTF rods, poles perches and bushels are.  I wish I was exaggerating for comic effect, but I'm not.


Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 31 May, 2022, 08:21:44 pm
Don't think maths had quite caught up at that point. A few years later, though, I was doing bases in arithmetic. My Dad, a chartered engineer, had to work hard to catch up with the "new maths" so that he could help with my homework.

Roll on a couple of decades and I, with a physics degree, was struggling with what my kids were doing in their school maths.

Your dad was "doing bases" but base 12 (for £,s,d) and probably other sorts of odd imperial nonsensical bases, rather than those you were doing.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 31 May, 2022, 08:26:12 pm
If I remember rightly, he'd grown up, even in engineering, with traditional (not decimal) fractions, and had to convert those. The old currency doesn't really do bases, as you count first in 12s, then in 20s, and then in tens. But you can do the odd 5s (crowns), 21s (guineas) and so on. It's all rather random for a computer to handle!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Basil on 31 May, 2022, 09:01:59 pm
Anyone remember those exercise books that had the back cover with lists of chains, rods, troy weight, cwt, etc
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 31 May, 2022, 09:07:06 pm
Anyone remember those exercise books that had the back cover with lists of chains, rods, troy weight, cwt, etc

No, I was born in 74

Unfortunately I deal with USAnians daily, cos oil and gas, hence cu.ft, bbl ...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 June, 2022, 09:55:09 am
I remember consistently misreading cwt as kilowatt. Not only for the obvious visual reason but because hundredweight just weren't, and aren't, a part of daily life. I can't remember where I was seeing this; pretty sure it wasn't at school, must have been some sort of old documents or something. In fact I'd say hundredweight are one of the most contextually confusing measurements; not only the UK-US difference but in a metric context it can be either 100kg or 50kg (as a metricised equivalent of the imperial measure). I suppose centner and quintal at least avoid that confusion.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: tatanab on 01 June, 2022, 10:05:43 am
hundredweight just weren't, and aren't, a part of daily life.
Not many decades ago, almost everybody knew what a British hundredweight was.  It was a sack of coal delivered by the coal man.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 June, 2022, 10:11:07 am
That would have been a great improvement on the electric storage heaters we had.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 01 June, 2022, 10:35:45 am
hundredweight just weren't, and aren't, a part of daily life.
Not many decades ago, almost everybody knew what a British hundredweight was.  It was a sack of coal delivered by the coal man.

"Not many decades ago" - yes, slightly fewer than 10 decades ago!

It's all relative, I suppose.

Coal will be banned for domestic use from next year.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 01 June, 2022, 11:36:00 am
hundredweight just weren't, and aren't, a part of daily life.
Not many decades ago, almost everybody knew what a British hundredweight was.  It was a sack of coal delivered by the coal man.

I presume the FOREIGNS used 50 kg sacks.  We got through tonnes of coke when I was a tiny Mr Larrington charged with monitoring the Kohlträger in 1969-70.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 01 June, 2022, 11:39:53 am
I remember consistently misreading cwt as kilowatt. Not only for the obvious visual reason but because hundredweight just weren't, and aren't, a part of daily life. I can't remember where I was seeing this; pretty sure it wasn't at school, must have been some sort of old documents or something. In fact I'd say hundredweight are one of the most contextually confusing measurements; not only the UK-US difference but in a metric context it can be either 100kg or 50kg (as a metricised equivalent of the imperial measure). I suppose centner and quintal at least avoid that confusion.

8 stone IIRC, which would be 112 lb or 50.9kg.

I've never seen it equated to 100kg
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 June, 2022, 11:41:41 am
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/centner
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Legs on 01 June, 2022, 11:44:07 am
Brian Bilston's poem of the day is rather excellent
(https://scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/285629408_5884427554907646_4075425286016633078_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=MBm2z1iGbiwAX-ovMcc&tn=8qICLkTGdaGjaS1G&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-1.xx&oh=00_AT_74oM6dhOkvO1qkWXPshMFNimchQgTy4nK_uoZx3yUTA&oe=629D10FD)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 01 June, 2022, 11:56:57 am
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/centner

the Swedish/German make more sense than the stupid English version. 
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Wobbly John on 01 June, 2022, 12:04:54 pm
I remember some graffitti, in the '70s, on a bridge over the A47 (in Norfolk): "Fight metrication - We don't want no foreign rulers"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 01 June, 2022, 01:21:26 pm
I remember consistently misreading cwt as kilowatt.

You think that's bad? I keep misreading km as Kim...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 June, 2022, 01:30:51 pm
I remember consistently misreading cwt as kilowatt.

You think that's bad? I keep misreading km as Kim...
:D ;D :D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 01 June, 2022, 01:40:47 pm
BSJ - hiding his shite under a bushel.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: TheLurker on 01 June, 2022, 03:21:53 pm
Quote from: Pingu
BSJ - hiding his shite under a bushel.
:)  Ta.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 01 June, 2022, 04:13:08 pm
Working on a health blog today, which includes this snippet...

Quote
A US study that followed more than 18,500 male doctors (all aged 40 or over) found that those who took multivitamins for at least 20 years were almost half as likely (44%) to experience a heart attack or stroke as those who hadn’t taken a multivitamin long-term. ‘This suggests the long-term use of supplements appears to offer significant cardiovascular protection,’ explains Dr XXXX. ‘Consider taking a multivitamin and mineral supplement as a nutritional safety net to help safeguard against diet deficiencies.’

Had a look at the study cited, this was its conclusion:
Quote
In this long-term prospective study in initially healthy men, multivitamin use for ≥20 y was associated with a lower risk of major CVD events.

I think there's a fair bit of mental gymnastics going on by Dr XXXX to get from the conclusion to her advice.

And I'm sure it's purely a coincidence that Dr XXXX is Medical Director for a nutritional supplement brand.

Everything that's wrong with mainstream health journalism in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 01 June, 2022, 06:26:30 pm
Anyone remember those exercise books that had the back cover with lists of chains, rods, troy weight, cwt, etc

Silvine for the win...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 03 June, 2022, 04:51:11 pm
BBC presenter, on Click no less, "this can produce 100 kilowatts per hour"  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bluebottle on 13 June, 2022, 07:42:50 pm
Billy Bragg is not correct when he asserts that "every alpha particle hides a neon nucleus".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 13 June, 2022, 08:57:59 pm
Billy Bragg is not correct when he asserts that "every alpha particle hides a neon nucleus".

This is the thread you are looking for. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=15495.0)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bluebottle on 13 June, 2022, 09:03:01 pm
Billy Bragg is not correct when he asserts that "every alpha particle hides a neon nucleus".

This is the thread you are looking for. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=15495.0)

Crikey. Can I buzz myself for repitition! Had forgotten all about that...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 13 June, 2022, 09:16:56 pm
Billy Bragg is not correct when he asserts that "every alpha particle hides a neon nucleus".

This is the thread you are looking for. (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=15495.0)

Why not both? :D

Either way, Braggs's got his alpha process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process) stellar nucleosynthesis the wrong way round (Neon being created by the fusion of oxygen with a helium nucleus).

Quote from: Tom Lehrer
This may prove useful to some of you some day, perhaps, in a somewhat bizarre set of circumstances.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: fd3 on 14 June, 2022, 11:16:55 pm
Working on a health blog today, which includes this snippet...
<snip>
I think there's a fair bit of mental gymnastics going on by Dr XXXX to get from the conclusion to her advice.

And I'm sure it's purely a coincidence that Dr XXXX is Medical Director for a nutritional supplement brand.

Everything that's wrong with mainstream health journalism in a nutshell.
Some 6th form science understanding would suggest that the sort of people who take vitamin supplements for the last 20 years (e.g. starting in their 20s) would tend to be more health conscious and will likely do other things that will be good for their health, hence less chance of heart attacks.  Correlation vs causality.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 15 June, 2022, 01:56:18 pm
It is technically a confounder, but a core reason while the vast majority of correlations aren't causal relationships. Of course, if most of the world knew this, social media would collapse.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 15 June, 2022, 02:00:04 pm
It is technically a confounder, but a core reason while the vast majority of correlations aren't causal relationships. Of course, if most of the world knew this, social media would collapse.

But not necessarily because everyone understood that correlation is not causation.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 15 June, 2022, 02:31:27 pm
It is technically a confounder, but a core reason while the vast majority of correlations aren't causal relationships. Of course, if most of the world knew this, social media would collapse.

Of course, that's just what They want you to think!  Wake up, sheeple!

["cont. Metal Milliners' Monthly Mercury" - Ed.]
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 15 June, 2022, 04:26:34 pm
This is where we are now:


Any erm on that, and you are a COVID MINIMIZER, which basically means you're a child-maiming eugenicist. Everyone needs a hobby.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 15 June, 2022, 04:42:13 pm
This is where we are now:

  • Little Timmy gets eaten by a lion a month or three after getting his covid jab: the jab made it happen
  • Little Timmy gets eaten by a lion a month or three after getting covid: covid made it happen

Whereas in reality, it had knack-all to do with either the jab or the dread lurgi, and it was little Timmy poking said lion with a stick* that made it happen. :demon:


* 'orse's 'ead 'andle optional.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 15 June, 2022, 06:58:32 pm
Nahh, lions are lazy bastards.  They're only going to eat little Timmy if they haven't been fed enough.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 15 June, 2022, 07:54:38 pm
Nahh, lions are lazy bastards.  They're only going to eat little Timmy if they haven't been fed enough.

Or if the covid vaccine made him taste of gravy
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 27 June, 2022, 08:51:56 pm
Nahh, lions are lazy bastards.  They're only going to eat little Timmy if they haven't been fed enough. the lionesses have caught him.
FTFY
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rogerzilla on 25 August, 2022, 03:51:39 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62672964

Quote
"We've had no support here from the government at all," said Ms Lovegrove.

"We will provide the heating for the children, we will just ask parents to put an extra layer in the children's bags so we don't need to have the heating on for the entire day."

She said that as the weather gets colder DaisyChain nursery in Weston-super-Mare will warm the building before children arrive but then only put it on for 10 to 20 minutes every hour to keep it at an ambient 20 degrees, rather than the usual 21 or 22 degrees.

Just turn the thermostat down to 20, Ms Lovegrove  :facepalm:  Unless there is no thermostat, in which case they are about £20 and easy to fit.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 25 August, 2022, 05:41:21 pm
I saw that and thought that it's ether someone with all the SCIENCE education of a typical primary teacher, or they're using those paraffin heaters from ian's youth.

Out of morbid curiosity, I poked around on Google, and discovered that the nursery in question does appear to be based in one of those portacabins from ian's youth, and for extra irony, the heating appears to be via a split-unit air conditioner (which Shirley has a thermostat), short-circuited by some generous air vents.  Heat pumps ftw!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 25 August, 2022, 07:30:02 pm
When I'm in power, one of the things taught in schools, along with reading and writing will be thermostats. Lesson 2 will be "turning the thermostat up doesn't make the room heat quicker."
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 25 August, 2022, 09:23:00 pm
When I'm in power, one of the things taught in schools, along with reading and writing will be thermostats. Lesson 2 will be "turning the thermostat up doesn't make the room heat quicker."

Can I pre-book a place on that course for my wife, please?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 25 August, 2022, 09:56:37 pm
Call it 'cybernetics' and people might even pay attention.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Basil on 25 August, 2022, 10:03:16 pm
When I'm in power, one of the things taught in schools, along with reading and writing will be thermostats. Lesson 2 will be "turning the thermostat up doesn't make the room heat quicker."

Can I pre-book a place on that course for my wife, please?

See also The Oven.  I tried and tried to explain to Mrs B that turning the oven to 240 won't get it to 180 any quicker.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 25 August, 2022, 10:52:38 pm
When I'm in power, one of the things taught in schools, along with reading and writing will be thermostats. Lesson 2 will be "turning the thermostat up doesn't make the room heat quicker."

Can I pre-book a place on that course for my wife, please?

See also The Oven.  I tried and tried to explain to Mrs B that turning the oven to 240 won't get it to 180 any quicker.

It depends on the control algorithm, other than limits on max power. Proportional-integral control, IIRC from undedgrad days would get it there quicker, proportional only would also get it there quicker. Just ON would not.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 25 August, 2022, 11:05:58 pm
Yes, I've long thought that by the time people finally get the message about thermostats, thermostats will no longer be simple thermostats.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 25 August, 2022, 11:13:35 pm
Yes, I've long thought that by the time people finally get the message about thermostats, thermostats will no longer be simple thermostats.
All that was in the back of my mind when I put forward my proposal up there and was thinking how to word it.  But then my attention wandered to a glass of Rioja.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 26 August, 2022, 08:07:53 am
Doesn't it also depend how you're using the heating? An oven you're almost always using from cold, so it makes no difference. But if you turn your heating on and off more frequently than the time it takes to return to ambient, than it's starting from a slightly higher temp if you last had it at 21 rather than 20. Whether it's a noticeable difference is another question.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 26 August, 2022, 08:27:29 am
Doesn't it also depend how you're using the heating? An oven you're almost always using from cold, so it makes no difference. But if you turn your heating on and off more frequently than the time it takes to return to ambient, than it's starting from a slightly higher temp if you last had it at 21 rather than 20. Whether it's a noticeable difference is another question.

Not sure what you mean.

There are two temperature settings for central heating; circulating water temperature and target room temperature.

If the room is below the target temperature, the thermostat 'calls for heat'. That starts the water circulation pump running. If the water temp in the boiler is below the circulating water temperature, the boiler will fire, and continue to fire until either:

If it is the second, the circulation pump will also stop running.

If your radiators are undersized for your boiler, the boiler will cycle on an off frequently (which is bad for the boiler).

Setting the room thermostat to a higher temperature has no effect how long it takes to get to temperature.

Setting individual radiator thermostatic valves to the maximum WILL heat up the rooms faster. There is a case for having all radiators open to full in rooms that are frequently used. Put thermostat in a hallway or something, set the temp lowish (for your standards), and open rad valves right up in the living room, kitchen.  The living room and kitchen will get toasty warm, the rest of the house tolerable.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 26 August, 2022, 04:40:07 pm
My 4-month-old boiler, on the same room 'stat as the old boiler was, starts modulating when Return reaches the level set on the 'stat in the boiler. Instaed of cutting on and off it just keeps going until the room 'stat switches. The temperature rises far quicker than it used to and, because Flow is set to 50C instead of 70C, there's far less overshoot.
I don't yet know about comparative usage as, for some reason, the heating hasn't been on for almost all of the four months.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: grams on 26 August, 2022, 04:56:15 pm
If you have a mechanical thermostat, turning it from 20 to 21 might not be enough to flip the bimetallic strip straight away, whereas turning it to 24 would flip it immediately. Ergo turning it up higher heats the room quicker.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 26 August, 2022, 05:27:13 pm
If you have a mechanical thermostat, turning it from 20 to 21 might not be enough to flip the bimetallic strip straight away, whereas turning it to 24 would flip it immediately. Ergo turning it up higher heats the room quicker.

I admit I don't know much about domestic thermostats but surely a whole degree C is quite a big margin? Sounds like you need a more sensitive thermostat.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 26 August, 2022, 06:04:49 pm
Lesson 3. Hysterisis.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 26 August, 2022, 07:04:16 pm
Setting the room thermostat to a higher temperature has no effect how long it takes to get to temperature.

Setting individual radiator thermostatic valves to the maximum WILL heat up the rooms faster. There is a case for having all radiators open to full in rooms that are frequently used. Put thermostat in a hallway or something, set the temp lowish (for your standards), and open rad valves right up in the living room, kitchen.  The living room and kitchen will get toasty warm, the rest of the house tolerable.


On the first point, is that still true in this era of smart modulating boilers?
My boiler controller talks to the internet to find out what the outside temp is, and is supposed to learn how long our home takes to get up to temperature, so it surely should be modulating the flow temp to meet the required diff T?

On the 2nd point, I don't get that. My method is to have the stat in the room I want to be warmest (i.e. the lounge) with the rad valve fully open and turn the valves down anywhere I want cooler. (They always say the valve should be fully open where the stat is),
Of course when we had the wood burning stove in the lounge at the last place I moved the stat to the bedroom. (My brother complains the rest of his house is freezing when his stat is in the lounge next to the stove)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: grams on 26 August, 2022, 08:16:26 pm
Most smart thermostats still only communicate with the boiler by shorting (or not) a pair of contacts to indicate the boiler should switch on.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 26 August, 2022, 11:17:25 pm
IRTA "shouting" and thought "Ah, that's why my heating makes such a bleedin' racket sometimes".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 31 August, 2022, 02:31:28 pm
Setting the room thermostat to a higher temperature has no effect how long it takes to get to temperature.

Setting individual radiator thermostatic valves to the maximum WILL heat up the rooms faster. There is a case for having all radiators open to full in rooms that are frequently used. Put thermostat in a hallway or something, set the temp lowish (for your standards), and open rad valves right up in the living room, kitchen.  The living room and kitchen will get toasty warm, the rest of the house tolerable.


On the first point, is that still true in this era of smart modulating boilers?
My boiler controller talks to the internet to find out what the outside temp is, and is supposed to learn how long our home takes to get up to temperature, so it surely should be modulating the flow temp to meet the required diff T?

On the 2nd point, I don't get that. My method is to have the stat in the room I want to be warmest (i.e. the lounge) with the rad valve fully open and turn the valves down anywhere I want cooler. (They always say the valve should be fully open where the stat is),
Of course when we had the wood burning stove in the lounge at the last place I moved the stat to the bedroom. (My brother complains the rest of his house is freezing when his stat is in the lounge next to the stove)
If you have rooms with rad valves cranked down, and the stat is in your 'warm' room, I'd say there is a fair possibility of getting cold damp areas in your house. Depends on the temp gradient in the house.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 04 September, 2022, 11:59:23 am
What’s ailing the sea lions stranded on California beaches?
Dozens of the marine animals are being found on the state’s southern beaches exhibiting signs of domoic acid poisoning (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/04/sick-sea-lions-california)

Quote
That could mean domoic acid adapts well as ocean waters heat up

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 11 September, 2022, 07:54:16 am
My daughter works in a place that i.a. makes electronic components.  Last week when checking the spec for a coil she found that a departed colleague had calculated the length of wire needed as the wattage divided by the circumference.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 11 September, 2022, 11:52:54 am
Mark Radcliffe on the radio this morning was talking about making flasks of tea. His hypothesis was that making two cups at a time and putting one in a flask for later saves energy by not having to boil the kettle twice.

Surely X amount of water requires Y amount of energy to boil regardless of whether you boil it all at once or in separate batches?

I suppose there are perhaps some losses due to inefficiency, but does boiling all the water at once reduce those inefficiencies at all?

Must admit I don’t know the answer to this. He may be making a perfectly good point.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 11 September, 2022, 11:55:56 am
Speculation: Some people don’t boil exactly the right amount of water in a kettle. Better to boil excess water once, rather than twice.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 11 September, 2022, 12:18:08 pm
I doubt it makes much impact, boiling a kettle is resistive heating, so the majority of the energy goes into the liquid (and a little into the kettle itself). Most of the loss will be to steam each time you boil (getting a fancy kettle that warms to 95 degrees is probably smarter). I think someone calculated the actual costs of boiling a kettle and it wasn't really much.

Plus he's a Radio DJ, so can probably afford to boil a kettle.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 11 September, 2022, 01:46:54 pm
He's losing heat when he puts the second cup into the thermos unless he uses more energy to pre-heat it, and while tea is in there it will lose volatiles into the air above it, so that the second cup will not be as good as the first.

But then he's a radio DJ...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Diver300 on 11 September, 2022, 02:44:46 pm
Surely X amount of water requires Y amount of energy to boil regardless of whether you boil it all at once or in separate batches?

I suppose there are perhaps some losses due to inefficiency, but does boiling all the water at once reduce those inefficiencies at all?
There are losses from heating excess water and the kettle itself, and some losses from the kettle shutting off after the water boils.
The thermos will lose heat, but the tea drinker may accept tea made with not-quite-boiling water (YMMV) and therefore heat lost from the thermos may not be extra electricity used.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 11 September, 2022, 03:53:39 pm
I usually get the water in the kettle to +/- 25ml of the amount required, then heat it to the required temperature ('stat on kettle; overshoot on small amount ~10 C (lag due to poor convection in shallow water and also heat from the element after switching off) 70 C seems to be just right for coffee (of the instant, decaff, Waitrose variety) so 60 C is set.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 11 September, 2022, 04:22:50 pm
Surely X amount of water requires Y amount of energy to boil regardless of whether you boil it all at once or in separate batches?

I suppose there are perhaps some losses due to inefficiency, but does boiling all the water at once reduce those inefficiencies at all?
There are losses from heating excess water and the kettle itself, and some losses from the kettle shutting off after the water boils.
The thermos will lose heat, but the tea drinker may accept tea made with not-quite-boiling water (YMMV) and therefore heat lost from the thermos may not be extra electricity used.
I think it's tea he's putting in the flask, not hot water.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 11 September, 2022, 05:45:48 pm
I think it's tea he's putting in the flask, not hot water.

It is indeed, he did specify that. One listener did suggest putting hot water in the flask then making the tea when you want it but Radcliffe declared this to be too much faff.
Title: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 11 September, 2022, 05:46:56 pm
Speculation: Some people don’t boil exactly the tight amount of water in a kettle. Better to boil excess water once, rather than twice.

It’s a fair point, but I don’t believe this was a factor in his thinking.

For the sake of this thought experiment, let us assume only the precise amount of water needed is being boiled.

(Fwiw, I usually fill the kettle by using the cup I will be drinking from to measure out how much water I need.)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 11 September, 2022, 11:37:29 pm
You've got to factor in the energy required to wash out the flask you wouldn't otherwise be using.  Which may be substantial if there's milk involvement...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: PeteB99 on 30 September, 2022, 05:13:37 pm
Meteorology that makes you cringe

Headline in todays Liverpool Echo

"Live updates as Liverpool hit by rain and wind from Hurricane Ian"

The Met chart I saw last night had Ian heading straight towrds South Carolina.

I suppose if you want to be charitable they might have meant the dregs of the one that hit Canada last week but that wasn't called Ian.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 30 September, 2022, 05:59:54 pm
I am everywhere.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 05 October, 2022, 10:28:29 am
A potential supplier has told us that they want to use an alternative aluminium alloy to the one specified and that a material comparison website states that the two alloys have 93% of their average alloy composition in common.  It appears that that is mostly the aluminium part of the composition and it is just the alloying elements that differ.  Erm  -  I think that you will find that those are the ones that make all the difference  ::-)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 13 December, 2022, 05:38:35 pm
So-called science re. development of an 'environmentally-friendly' anti-fouling paint for boats. Based on 'natural' silicone. At this point I was wondering how 'natural' silicone is. Read on and found that silicone is made from sand. Might be an extra letter somewhere.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bledlow on 19 December, 2022, 09:17:53 pm
A potential supplier has told us that they want to use an alternative aluminium alloy to the one specified and that a material comparison website states that the two alloys have 93% of their average alloy composition in common.  It appears that that is mostly the aluminium part of the composition and it is just the alloying elements that differ.  Erm  -  I think that you will find that those are the ones that make all the difference  ::-)
Er - what? Did you cross 'em off the list of potential suppliers?

I was just imagining a food product which is 7% sugar being replaced by one which is identical except for having 7% salt instead of the sugar. Honest, it's the same! Taste it!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 20 December, 2022, 12:35:36 am
I was just imagining a food product which is 7% sugar being replaced by one which is identical except for having 7% salt instead of the sugar. Honest, it's the same! Taste it!

Ah, the difference between traditional American and traditional Scottish cooking...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 20 December, 2022, 07:31:15 am
A potential supplier has told us that they want to use an alternative aluminium alloy to the one specified and that a material comparison website states that the two alloys have 93% of their average alloy composition in common.  It appears that that is mostly the aluminium part of the composition and it is just the alloying elements that differ.  Erm  -  I think that you will find that those are the ones that make all the difference  ::-)
Er - what? Did you cross 'em off the list of potential suppliers?

I was just imagining a food product which is 7% sugar being replaced by one which is identical except for having 7% salt instead of the sugar. Honest, it's the same! Taste it!

I suggested that we find a better supplier who at least had a vague understanding of what they are talking about.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 23 December, 2022, 05:31:25 pm
(https://images.ctfassets.net/tyagww523muq/63LYaptUb4duY8TMX5A4EM/65aba6ee5cffccd17ad7c175ffaf16e2/this_one-min.jpg?w=1045&h=588&q=50&fit=fill&f=faces)

Good News article about how new Head has turned school around.

Wot no goggles on Head?
Nobody in protective clothes.
Girl's long hair is loose.
Open flame on Bunsen burner.

What sort of POSE is this?
What sort of education?

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 23 December, 2022, 05:34:42 pm
Pah, amateurs.  They haven't even arranged a row of conical flasks containing different coloured liquids on the windowsill.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 23 December, 2022, 05:39:39 pm
Doesn't look like NEW, SHINY! school HAS windowsills...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 23 December, 2022, 06:36:06 pm
That could be a deliberate design feature, to stop people putting stuffs on them. Sloping window sills can be used for this purpose TAAW.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 23 December, 2022, 06:59:41 pm
They're doing pretty well. They've got a flask of cherry coke, two tubes or urine, head has a grin, girl has a big smile ("I enjoy science. Setting fire to my hair is the best part.") and the boys have serious scientist faces.

I remember that in chemistry lessons we were supposed to leave the bunsen burners with a glowing flame like that (luminous?) so it was visible. Obviously gas was cheaper back then.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 23 December, 2022, 07:09:28 pm
It's compulsory to have them in luminous flame mode for media photos, even if you're actively heating something or aren't doing anything that would require the use of a bunsen burner.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 23 December, 2022, 07:20:27 pm
The adult in the pic isn't doing a good job of leading by example regarding the goggles.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 23 December, 2022, 07:22:57 pm
The adult in the pic isn't doing a good job of leading by example regarding the goggles.

They probably couldn't find a set that were three times too big for his head.

(It's likely that the kids are wearing goggles borrowed from the staff room, as they're suspiciously transparent.)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 24 December, 2022, 12:31:20 am
That is the school's entire PPE budget blown there. And their gas cylinder.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 24 December, 2022, 10:14:08 am
Girl's long hair is loose.

And ties should be tucked into shirts.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 24 December, 2022, 10:41:40 am
PPE budget? What a bunch of ninnies. In our school it was "front row move back a bit" then the master ducked down behind his bench and used tongs to heave a chunk of potassium into a vat of water. He got wet.  The flash & the bang were fun too.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Flite on 24 December, 2022, 11:34:30 am
Science was much more fun in the middle of 20thC
Dippping fingers into a dish of mercury because it was just weird stuff. Then pushing beads of mercury around the bench till they fell down the cracks and were lost forever.
Plenty of bangs and fizzy things, and never a thought of safety goggles.
Actually it hadn't changed much when I was teaching in the 1970s
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 24 December, 2022, 07:32:32 pm
One of the boys in my class set his hair on fire over a bunsen burner (accidentally). Fashion was for longer hair then, of course.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: TheLurker on 24 December, 2022, 08:16:52 pm
Quote from: Flite
Science was much more fun in the middle of 20thC
Dippping fingers into a dish of mercury because it was just weird stuff. Then pushing beads of mercury around the bench till they fell down the cracks and were lost forever.
Plenty of bangs and fizzy things, and never a thought of safety goggles.
Actually it hadn't changed much when I was teaching in the 1970s
Aye, it was pretty laissez faire but then again... I bet that these days they don't have the Chemistry teacher getting in a bit of a flap trying to work out where the bloody hell the smear of phosphorus* is that has just given one of us spotty teenage oiks a nasty chemical burn.

*I think it was P, but it was 45 years ago and memory fades...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 24 December, 2022, 10:02:54 pm
Friend of mine used to tell tales of a chemistry teacher dropping sodium into drains.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Flite on 24 December, 2022, 10:05:48 pm
And there was the time we had a probationary teacher who had us using mouth pipettes to measure sodium hydroxide - with predicable results.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 24 December, 2022, 10:52:37 pm
One of the boys in my class set his hair on fire over a bunsen burner (accidentally). Fashion was for longer hair then, of course.

Our school was liberal about hair styles and some of the boys had WILD 'Jewfros' Afros or long hair. Only rules about hair were
'Hair must be clean, combed and tidy. Long hair must be tied back for Science and sport/PE.

I think our ties were restrained by our lab coats.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rr on 24 December, 2022, 11:46:10 pm
Friend of mine used to tell tales of a chemistry teacher dropping sodium into drains.
I did that in the sixth form and looked all innocent as the mushroom cloud emerged from the sink.

Sent from my motorola edge 20 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rr on 24 December, 2022, 11:47:22 pm
And there was the time we had a probationary teacher who had us using mouth pipettes to measure sodium hydroxide - with predicable results.
We pipetted by mouth at o level

Sent from my motorola edge 20 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mrs Pingu on 24 December, 2022, 11:54:32 pm
I think the only thing I've ever pipetted by mouth was drinking water samples for bug plates.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 24 December, 2022, 11:55:31 pm
Everybody should mouth pipette acetone for the lolz.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 25 December, 2022, 09:14:17 am
Making NI3
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rafletcher on 25 December, 2022, 11:56:20 am
Friend of mine used to tell tales of a chemistry teacher dropping sodium into drains.
I did that in the sixth form and looked all innocent as the mushroom cloud emerged from the sink.

Sent from my motorola edge 20 using Tapatalk

I made gun cotton in Chemistry club. And TNI. We also used Bromine to demonstrate Brownian motion, with a bucket of Ammonia as a counter-measure IIRC. And a bucket of water to rinse off the Ammonia. Oh, and demonstrated the breaking of the sound barrier by putting a sealed water-containing test tube over a Bunsen burner until the pressure built sufficiently for the tube to rupture. We did have a screen for that on.

Lewes Priory School, C1973.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 25 December, 2022, 04:07:43 pm
When I first started in a lab we used to pipette cyanide solution by mouth.
One chap said that he might have gone a bit too far, antidote used with great glee, cue green shit for a couple of days.
Did lead to a change, though.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Bluebottle on 26 December, 2022, 10:43:50 am
Everybody should mouth pipette acetone for the lolz.

I can neither confirm nor deny if I have a former colleaugue who learnt their lesson by overzealously mouth pipetting phenol.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 06 January, 2023, 07:50:39 am
Bloody BBC, mixing up power and energy again.

Quote
On a single day in November, more than 70% of electricity was produced by wind, or around 20GW.

FFS, does it cost you to insert an 'h'?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 06 January, 2023, 08:29:27 am
Bloody BBC, mixing up power and energy again.

Quote
On a single day in November, more than 70% of electricity was produced by wind, or around 20GW.

FFS, does it cost you to insert an 'h'?

I don't think that it is as simple as just adding an 'h'.

After a quick Google I suspect that they are indeed getting confused by power and energy and may possibly be ignoring other renewables in their stats.

There may have been another 'green' day later in the month but this has similar numbers but presented very differently: https://reneweconomy.com.au/new-renewables-record-as-uk-wind-generation-blows-past-20gw/

Hopefully someone will be along in a bit who either knows what they are talking about or who has more time than me to dig out the info.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rogerzilla on 06 January, 2023, 08:48:25 am
Everybody should mouth pipette acetone for the lolz.

I can neither confirm nor deny if I have a former colleaugue who learnt their lesson by overzealously mouth pipetting phenol.
Supposedly printers, who use toluene as a solvent to clean the presses, inhale enough of it to suffer from a  condition known as "tolly ring", which is like the wire spiders but with added heat.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 23 January, 2023, 03:32:53 pm
"Why you shouldn't truncate the Y axis"

https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1616951506493931520?s=20&t=djkHPPcqjvR-dLTcjbcf6g

 ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 10 May, 2023, 06:20:10 pm
Science or math?
[the object] has a footprint of half a cubic metre.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 10 May, 2023, 09:39:20 pm
"Why you shouldn't truncate the Y axis"

https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1616951506493931520?s=20&t=djkHPPcqjvR-dLTcjbcf6g

 ;D
No, the problem there is truncating the Y axis but not truncating the trunks (or the legs). It's perfectly possible to truncate an axis and convey information clearly, but it's rarely possible to do so when you send contradictory signals at the same time, as they've done by showing whole figures with partial axes.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 10 May, 2023, 11:27:28 pm
There's also a linear vs area/volume scale factor issue, though it's not so bad when it refers to the height of human beings (which do tend to scale in all dimensions anyway).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 13 May, 2023, 10:37:52 pm
Science or math?
[the object] has a footprint of half a cubic metre.

It's the mice from Hitchhikers', innit.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 13 May, 2023, 10:45:41 pm
“[…] they're a pretty nasty heathen lot up there who should just be smashed and done in, and would be, too, if anyone could work out a way of firing missiles at right angles to reality“
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 14 May, 2023, 10:26:56 am
"Why you shouldn't truncate the Y axis"

https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1616951506493931520?s=20&t=djkHPPcqjvR-dLTcjbcf6g

 ;D
No, the problem there is truncating the Y axis but not truncating the trunks (or the legs). It's perfectly possible to truncate an axis and convey information clearly, but it's rarely possible to do so when you send contradictory signals at the same time, as they've done by showing whole figures with partial axes.

The source website has been shamed into changing the graphic, but now the men are floating 10cm above the ground:

(https://patient.azureedge.net/media/Default/_Profiles/4e436251/93a66eeb/fb1c4472-91ce-40e3-b6d7-0fdb59534f39.jpg?v=638193601640000000)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: drossall on 14 May, 2023, 02:29:49 pm
Yes, but this is about relative heights. As long as they all jump at the same time, we'll get the picture ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 14 May, 2023, 03:20:46 pm
Yes, but this is about relative heights. As long as they all jump at the same time, we'll get the picture ;D

Well yes and no  ;)

The guy on the left has 6'0" tattooed on the back of his head, but the ruler next to him clearly says he's only 5'6"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hatler on 14 May, 2023, 06:21:23 pm
5' 8"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jurek on 14 May, 2023, 06:40:09 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 14 May, 2023, 07:56:36 pm
oh yeah that  :facepalm: f'in USAnian units.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: perpetual dan on 14 May, 2023, 08:14:05 pm
So humans can all jump to the same height, as leg shorter length is balanced out by smaller bodies? That’s an interesting bit of science. ;)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ian on 15 May, 2023, 07:14:06 pm
They're basically all wearing 4-inch heels or lifts à la Macron.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 15 May, 2023, 07:19:41 pm
So humans can all jump to the same height, as leg shorter length is balanced out by smaller bodies? That’s an interesting bit of science. ;)

Science A-level, presumably.  On results day.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: cygnet on 15 May, 2023, 07:36:27 pm
What sport/exercise excessively develops calves and forearms?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 May, 2023, 07:47:34 pm
Leapfrog?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jurek on 15 May, 2023, 07:50:12 pm
What sport/exercise excessively develops calves and forearms?
Badminton should do both.
Although I'm not sure about excessively.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 16 May, 2023, 08:04:28 am
Sumo, which develops everything excessively.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 23 June, 2023, 03:13:28 pm
The beeb . . .

Quote
People inside are kept safe by the pressure inside the vessel.

But if there were a rupture to the structure, the pressure outside would be much greater, compressing the vessel.

wtf?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rafletcher on 23 June, 2023, 04:22:19 pm
The beeb . . .

Quote
People inside are kept safe by the pressure inside the vessel.

But if there were a rupture to the structure, the pressure outside would be much greater, compressing the vessel.

wtf?

Written by the usual child I expect.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: pumpkin on 23 June, 2023, 07:41:22 pm
That carbon fibre attached to titanium is a good idea based on ??? as opposed to the tried and tested all titanium spherical construction
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 23 June, 2023, 08:34:37 pm
That carbon fibre attached to titanium is a good idea based on ??? as opposed to the tried and tested all titanium spherical construction

You sound like an uninspirational fifty year old white guy ;)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 25 June, 2023, 04:11:00 pm
That carbon fibre attached to titanium is a good idea based on ??? as opposed to the tried and tested all titanium spherical construction

And using a cylinder instead of a sphere
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: spesh on 26 June, 2023, 05:32:29 pm
That carbon fibre attached to titanium is a good idea based on ??? as opposed to the tried and tested all titanium spherical construction

And using a cylinder instead of a sphere

Not so much "SCIENCE! that makes you cringe", more "SCIENCE! that makes you ask what the everloving, bleeding blue utter suffering **** the designer thought they were doing". :o :facepalm: >:(
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: chrisbainbridge on 27 June, 2023, 12:09:48 pm
That carbon fibre attached to titanium is a good idea based on ??? as opposed to the tried and tested all titanium spherical construction

And using a cylinder instead of a sphere

Not so much "SCIENCE! that makes you cringe", more "SCIENCE! that makes you ask what the everloving, bleeding blue utter suffering **** the designer thought they were doing". :o :facepalm: >:(

I think anybody who has seen the result of a broken carbon bike frame would have been able to tell them it was a stupid idea. 
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Feanor on 27 June, 2023, 12:26:10 pm
I think anybody who has seen the result of a broken carbon bike frame would have been able to tell them it was a stupid idea.

Absolutely.
Experience with bike frames indicates titanium as the solution, all the way down. ;-)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 11 July, 2023, 09:42:44 am
Seen on Facebook for GrownupsLinkedIn

Quote
powered by digital electricity

<boggle>
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 11 July, 2023, 10:36:06 am
Two states: on (voles) and off (no voles).  Binary = digital as any fule kno.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 11 July, 2023, 10:58:17 am
Seen on Facebook for GrownupsLinkedIn

Quote
powered by digital electricity

<boggle>

I wonder if they mean Power over Ethernet?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 11 July, 2023, 11:31:51 am
Seen on Facebook for GrownupsLinkedIn

Quote
powered by digital electricity

<boggle>

I wonder if they mean Power over Ethernet?

That would be "electric WiFi"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 11 July, 2023, 11:32:37 am
Two states: on (voles) and off (no voles).  Binary = digital as any fule kno.

True, but according to my Computer Science teacher it is never quite as tidy as that.  There's a problem with the instantaneosity factor. 
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 11 July, 2023, 04:26:54 pm
Blimey. Two points to Mr Charley. Digital Electricity does indeed appear to be A Thing and related to Power Over Ethernet.  Whether this is the stuff referenced in the LinkedIn article I don't know, as it's vanished from my feed.

Tortuous article here:

https://voltserver.com/digital-electricity/what-is-it/#:~:text=Digital%20Electricity%E2%84%A2%20qualifies%20to,deliver%20power%20to%20remote%20devices. (https://voltserver.com/digital-electricity/what-is-it/#:~:text=Digital%20Electricity%E2%84%A2%20qualifies%20to,deliver%20power%20to%20remote%20devices.)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 11 July, 2023, 04:39:50 pm
I don't really deserve credit, as I was assuming it was a stupid marketing wonk name, technically wrong.

However

Quote
The technology leverages our patented packet energy transfer to deliver significant power over significant distances.  The technology splits energy into packets and transfers hundreds of packets each second from a Transmitter unit to a Receiver unit.

It is indeed digital power. Learn something new every day.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 11 July, 2023, 05:00:50 pm
I don't really deserve credit, as I was assuming it was a stupid marketing wonk name, technically wrong.

However

Quote
The technology leverages our patented packet energy transfer to deliver significant power over significant distances.  The technology splits energy into packets and transfers hundreds of packets each second from a Transmitter unit to a Receiver unit.

It is indeed digital power. Learn something new every day.

Using leverage as a verb does indeed suggest marketing twats.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 13 August, 2023, 09:31:01 pm
Cudzo linked to an article on the best powerbank thread about a very light one. It contains this gem:

Quote
20k mAh

Can someone make it stop? Please?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 August, 2023, 09:40:35 pm
Cudzo linked to an article on the best powerbank thread about a very light one. It contains this gem:

Quote
20k mAh

Can someone make it stop? Please?
Yeah, I remember cringing a bit at that when I read it. I'm not sure I'd call it quite science, more the meeting point of arithmetic and grammar. Is it okay to say "20,000 mAh"? It kind of shouldn't be, but it is the norm and it's more easily understood than 20 Ah, simply through familiarity (in this context). But certainly the juxtaposition of kilo with milli does emphasize the incongruity.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: tonyh on 14 August, 2023, 08:15:38 am
Anyway, not keen on "k" masquerading as a unit, eg 200k (k£ or km).
Just an abbreviation for "thousand" though, so can't really complain.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: PhilO on 14 August, 2023, 08:43:51 am
On a related theme, is anybody else as irritated as I am by the common use of 'kW' for battery capacity and 'kWh' for charge rate (or even worse 'kW per hour'!  :facepalm:) whenever EVs get discussed?  It really makes my knuckles itch!   >:(
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 14 August, 2023, 09:37:20 am
On a related theme, is anybody else as irritated as I am by the common use of 'kW' for battery capacity and 'kWh' for charge rate (or even worse 'kW per hour'!  :facepalm:) whenever EVs get discussed?  It really makes my knuckles itch!   >:(

I haven't seen that. WTF is kWh charge rate?  Do they actually mean kWh per h (which would be, um, kW)?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Lightning Phil on 14 August, 2023, 09:53:59 am
Anyway, not keen on "k" masquerading as a unit, eg 200k (k£ or km).
Just an abbreviation for "thousand" though, so can't really complain.

Even worse is people using m as unit of miles.  You then get guff such as “Did a really long ride of 150m”…
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Diver300 on 14 August, 2023, 10:31:36 am
On a related theme, is anybody else as irritated as I am by the common use of 'kW' for battery capacity and 'kWh' for charge rate (or even worse 'kW per hour'!  :facepalm:) whenever EVs get discussed?  It really makes my knuckles itch!   >:(

I haven't seen that. WTF is kWh charge rate?  Do they actually mean kWh per h (which would be, um, kW)?
Yes, they mean kW. I can sort of see the reason for kWh / h, because electricity meters read in kWh (or units of electricity), and EV batteries are rated in kWh. Adding 50 kWh to a car battery will increase the reading on the meter by (about) 50 kWh, however fast it is done.

There is a lot incorrect use of units when it comes to EVs and power generation.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 14 August, 2023, 11:10:15 am
On a related theme, is anybody else as irritated as I am by the common use of 'kW' for battery capacity and 'kWh' for charge rate (or even worse 'kW per hour'!  :facepalm:) whenever EVs get discussed?  It really makes my knuckles itch!   >:(

I haven't seen that. WTF is kWh charge rate?  Do they actually mean kWh per h (which would be, um, kW)?
Yes, they mean kW. I can sort of see the reason for kWh / h, because electricity meters read in kWh (or units of electricity), and EV batteries are rated in kWh. Adding 50 kWh to a car battery will increase the reading on the meter by (about) 50 kWh, however fast it is done.

There is a lot incorrect use of units when it comes to EVs and power generation.

So what they want to say is:

This is a 50 kW charger, so in one hour it can add 50kWh to your battery.

Which is probably guff, as batteries don't charge in a linear fashion, but good enough for rough estimates "my 70kWh battery has about a third left, so that will take about 1hr at the charger"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 14 August, 2023, 12:03:50 pm
My pet hate is appliance manufacturers quoting kWh/year.  I can see how you might find yourself working in them for running cost calculations (though it seems rather assumptive to use years as the basis rather than days[1] or months).  But for comparing efficiency we already have a standard unit: Watts.

It feels like, in an effort to avoid confusing people with the difference between rated power and average power, they've taught everyone to muddle energy and power.


[1] Pirate-ninjas are equally useful on Earth.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 14 August, 2023, 02:21:20 pm
Two states: on (voles) and off (no voles).  Binary = digital as any fule kno.

One of the solutions in Saturday's crossword was ELECTRONIC PIANO. But surely, I said to myself, it's an ELECTRIC PIANO?

A quick search of that internet they have these days revealed that an electronic piano and an electric piano are different things but both exist.

However, it seems the majority of people who sell/manufacture electronic pianos prefer to call them DIGITAL PIANOS.

Eh? Surely *all* pianos are digital?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 14 August, 2023, 03:00:36 pm
[…]
However, it seems the majority of people who sell/manufacture electronic pianos prefer to call them DIGITAL PIANOS.

Eh? Surely *all* pianos are digital?

I'm sure Jerry Lee Lewis had piano-playing techniques that didn’t involve fingers.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 14 August, 2023, 05:10:11 pm
'Digital' hasn't meant digital electronics for a good 20 years now.  It stopped meaning fingers well before that.

Hm, given that the modern meaning approximates to "the internet"[1], does that mean a DIGITAL PIANO is internet-of-shit compliant?


[1] As in "Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport", which is a fine example of  a) silly names  and  b) the importance of punctuation
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 14 August, 2023, 06:16:01 pm
They may be internet-of-shit compliant now but they weren’t in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Keyboard_Breaks:_Live_in_Chicago
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 14 August, 2023, 06:31:48 pm
It stopped meaning fingers well before that.

Clearly "the internet" has become the default meaning for most people but it hasn't ever stopped meaning fingers - doctors still use "digital rectal examination", for example, to mean sticking a finger up your bum.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 14 August, 2023, 06:39:41 pm
I'm sure there's some clever and determined limbless person who has taught themselves to play the piano by means of a stick attached to their chin, or similar.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 14 August, 2023, 06:41:23 pm
It feels like, in an effort to avoid confusing people with the difference between rated power and average power, they've taught everyone to muddle energy and power.


[1] Pirate-ninjas are equally useful on Earth.
I think I've only not been muddled on these during school physics lessons. Every mention of them now just adds a new dimension of confusion.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 14 August, 2023, 08:20:07 pm
It stopped meaning fingers well before that.

Clearly "the internet" has become the default meaning for most people but it hasn't ever stopped meaning fingers - doctors still use "digital rectal examination", for example, to mean sticking a finger up your bum.

And engineers still use "digital signal" to mean one with discrete values.

But if you ask J Random Person what digital means, they'll probably say "I dunno, apps and stuff"
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 14 August, 2023, 08:20:56 pm
I'm sure there's some clever and determined limbless person who has taught themselves to play the piano by means of a stick attached to their chin, or similar.

Or some sort of eye-gaze MIDI controller...   :demon:
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Wowbagger on 14 August, 2023, 09:50:09 pm
I'm sure there's some clever and determined limbless person who has taught themselves to play the piano by means of a stick attached to their chin, or similar.

I'm not sure it this is mere coincidence, but last night on the BBC they broadcast a recording of a prom from last week in which Felix Klieser, and armless German, played Mozart's 4th Horn Concerto using the toes of his left foot to operate the valves.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 14 August, 2023, 10:13:50 pm
...Eh? Surely *all* pianos are digital?

Player piano.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 15 August, 2023, 01:12:35 am
...Eh? Surely *all* pianos are digital?

Player piano.

So it goes.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 14 October, 2023, 09:25:42 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/14/scientists-build-traps-to-manage-uks-rising-number-of-chinese-mitten-crabs

Quote
the crustaceans, which can grow bigger than a 10-inch dinner plate

Why not just say 10 inches?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 15 October, 2023, 06:37:46 am
I guess it is more descriptive, I.e. they very flat.  Maybe they should be renamed Dinner Plate Crabs and then people would eat them?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 October, 2023, 09:49:38 am
You can imagine the process.
Journo: "the crustaceans, which grow to more than ten inches"
ED: People don't know how big ten inches is, be descriptive.
Journo: "the crustaceans, which grow as big as a dinner plate"
ED: What size dinner plate? Be accurate.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 15 October, 2023, 04:23:56 pm
I think Cudz is spot on. They wanted to convey that they are flat and round (though there was a picture). 10" doesn't work, they could be long and thin. Or 10" from claw to tail. 10" diameter, not that either, they could be spherical.

Though I despair that The G thinks their readership needs things in inches.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pickled Onion on 15 October, 2023, 04:34:21 pm
This article (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/09/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-project-starts-powering-uk-grid), when it first came out had the sub-headline

Quote from: The Guardian
First of 277 turbines goes into operation at site that will produce enough energy for 6m homes a year

And repeated the howler throughout the text. Thankfully it's been corrected now. What even is a "home per year"?

It's still there in this other article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/08/biggest-clean-energy-disaster-in-years-uk-auction-secures-no-offshore-windfarms) from September

Quote
Up to 5 gigawatts of offshore wind was eligible to compete, which could have powered nearly 8m homes a year.

I also like the idea of wind competing.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 15 October, 2023, 07:10:22 pm
This article (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/09/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-project-starts-powering-uk-grid), when it first came out had the sub-headline

Quote from: The Guardian
First of 277 turbines goes into operation at site that will produce enough energy for 6m homes a year

And repeated the howler throughout the text. Thankfully it's been corrected now. What even is a "home per year"?

It's still there in this other article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/08/biggest-clean-energy-disaster-in-years-uk-auction-secures-no-offshore-windfarms) from September

Quote
Up to 5 gigawatts of offshore wind was eligible to compete, which could have powered nearly 8m homes a year.

I also like the idea of wind competing.
I don't like it when the wind competes with me as I cycle along. I much prefer the wind to be on my side (actually at my back is better).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: cygnet on 17 October, 2023, 08:18:33 am
You can imagine the process.
Journo: "the crustaceans, which grow to more than ten inches"
ED: People don't know how big ten inches is, be descriptive.
Journo: "the crustaceans, which grow as big as a dinner plate"
ED: What size dinner plate? Be accurate.

Bigger than an Linton Travel Tavern dinner plate?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 17 October, 2023, 10:09:53 am
This article (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/oct/09/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-project-starts-powering-uk-grid), when it first came out had the sub-headline

Quote from: The Guardian
First of 277 turbines goes into operation at site that will produce enough energy for 6m homes a year

And repeated the howler throughout the text. Thankfully it's been corrected now. What even is a "home per year"?

It's still there in this other article (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/08/biggest-clean-energy-disaster-in-years-uk-auction-secures-no-offshore-windfarms) from September

Quote
Up to 5 gigawatts of offshore wind was eligible to compete, which could have powered nearly 8m homes a year.

I also like the idea of wind competing.
I think that 'wind competing' is a jargon phrase for 'competing to supply', because at any one time the National Grid will 'call' for supply from multiple generators. Some generators will be spun down, because they aren't needed.

We really, really need to build more large scale energy storage. Couple more big hydro dams at least, or multiple small ones.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 17 October, 2023, 03:19:29 pm
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment. 
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 17 October, 2023, 03:29:43 pm
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

Batteries require a lot of resources to build. Even the iron or vanadium / air batteries.

Dams require water and a bit of concrete (yes, and suitable land, but that exists).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 17 October, 2023, 06:03:16 pm
Dams also have significant environmental impact, and not just if you’re a fish.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 17 October, 2023, 06:16:35 pm
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

This does stack up:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmrwdTGZxGk
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 17 October, 2023, 06:19:26 pm
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

Batteries require a lot of resources to build. Even the iron or vanadium / air batteries.

Dams require water and a bit of concrete (yes, and suitable land, but that exists).

What I meant was futuristic battery tech rather than SOTA stuff. Stuff beyond our weirdest dreams, like witch craft.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Peter on 17 October, 2023, 06:27:32 pm
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

This does stack up:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmrwdTGZxGk

I see what you did there Jon.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 18 October, 2023, 07:03:39 am
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

This does stack up:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmrwdTGZxGk
Ha ha ha.

Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Jaded on 18 October, 2023, 08:52:49 am
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

Batteries require a lot of resources to build. Even the iron or vanadium / air batteries.

Dams require water and a bit of concrete (yes, and suitable land, but that exists).

I thought that the rush for hydroelectric in the last century had used almost all the good locations?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 18 October, 2023, 09:47:33 am
Battery technology. I am sure it has plenty to offer, just needs investment.
When you compare battery storage with hydro dam storage, it doesn't stack up.

Batteries require a lot of resources to build. Even the iron or vanadium / air batteries.

Dams require water and a bit of concrete (yes, and suitable land, but that exists).

I thought that the rush for hydroelectric in the last century had used almost all the good locations?
Nope
You only need a 20m difference between low and high dam.
Plus they don't need to be mega dams.

The last century rush was for hydro generation.
That has different requirements from pump up storage.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Polar Bear on 18 October, 2023, 10:09:51 am
I would imagine that an awful lot of reservoirs would be suitable for conversion to energy storage.  The added bonus being that they are spread around the country so would be good generally for regionalised energy distribution.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Polar Bear on 18 October, 2023, 10:11:35 am
Further thought:  more electrify is required during the October to April period when we get on average more rain.  This would complement the solar generation which tends to be more efficient in the March to October months.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 18 October, 2023, 10:22:19 am
I would imagine that an awful lot of reservoirs would be suitable for conversion to energy storage.  The added bonus being that they are spread around the country so would be good generally for regionalised energy distribution.
But we also need more reservoirs for drinking water. Can one reservoir be used for both purposes? I don't see why not, but there might be a reason.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 24 October, 2023, 05:30:30 pm
Dear Guardian, fossils aren't artefacts.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/22/callous-reckless-unethical-scientists-in-row-over-rare-fossils-flown-into-space

Caption under skull photo.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 01 November, 2023, 08:37:23 pm
Two belters today, among several, on a training course I was on:

1. Radio waves fall to the ground due to gravity.*

2. Overhead power lines carry DC electricity.


* ok, yes, black holes and other GBFO objects can exert a gravitational pull on electromagnetic radiation, but "fall to the ground"?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 01 November, 2023, 08:51:42 pm
To be fair, overhead DC interconnectors are a thing, but it's one of those cases where the reduced losses from DC transmission have to outweigh the losses and additional complexity of converting to DC and back, so it only makes economic sense over the sort of distances you aren't going to encounter in BRITAIN.

BFO pylons supporting only a pair of conductors look surprisingly *wrong*: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HVDC_Crossover_North-Dakota.jpg
(Not least because as the current isn't alternating, there shouldn't be any electro-magneto-gravitational force pulling the cables to the ground, so why waste all that money on pylons?  ;D)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 November, 2023, 09:24:25 pm
I think DC transmission is used in Siberia and Russia's Far East, due to the enormous distances.

And according to that Wikipedia, Britain is Europe's nexus of HVDC transmission, albeit not overhead:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/HVDC_Europe.svg/350px-HVDC_Europe.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 01 November, 2023, 10:06:46 pm
The economics shift further in DC's favour as soon as the medium you're stringing the cables through is water, rather than air, as the losses from AC become greater.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 02 November, 2023, 12:51:17 am
There's quite a lot of it about, it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 November, 2023, 02:22:18 pm
And according to that Wikipedia, Britain is Europe's nexus of HVDC transmission, albeit not overhead:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/HVDC_Europe.svg/350px-HVDC_Europe.svg.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

It makes a lot of sense to trade electrons with BRITIAN, on account of us having our own timezone, and (for viewers in Scotland) an occasional surplus of wind power.  Thanks to Putin, it's recently made economic sense to off-load LNG here, burn the gas and sell the resulting electrons to Europe, where there's been a shortage of gas terminal capacity.

IIRC the North Sea Link paid for itself in about a year.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 03 November, 2023, 09:11:48 am
The economics shift further in DC's favour as soon as the medium you're stringing the cables through is water, rather than air, as the losses from AC become greater.

That's something I hadn't heard.

Some dielectric effect coupling with the water?

There is a rumbling of concern about the effect of electric cables on sealife.

They've found that crabs are reluctant to cross the HVDC cables, which is an issue when the crabs migrate for breeding.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 03 November, 2023, 12:54:45 pm
The economics shift further in DC's favour as soon as the medium you're stringing the cables through is water, rather than air, as the losses from AC become greater.

That's something I hadn't heard.

Some dielectric effect coupling with the water?

I think it's more that a rugged cable (rather than an uninsulated wire strung from pylons) is in itself a fairly effective capacitor.


Quote
There is a rumbling of concern about the effect of electric cables on sealife.

As featured in the documentary Jaws 2   ;D


Quote
They've found that crabs are reluctant to cross the HVDC cables, which is an issue when the crabs migrate for breeding.

That's not going to end well.  Never underestimate crabs.

Presumably burying the cables would mitigate that, but that's a whole lot more expense...
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 03 November, 2023, 12:56:28 pm
I think burying the cables would be not only a whole lot more expense, it would introduce an whole extra level of sea-bed disturbance. Something similar is being observed in some places with buried (in land) cables and pipes.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 15 November, 2023, 11:06:06 pm
More electrically based nonsense:

Quote
The specialist global investment manager revealed the Kent-based project, which consists of 373MW of solar and “more than” 150MW of battery energy storage, is expected to be fully completed by the end of 2024.

My bold.

That from a solar power trade comic, where you might hope they know the difference between MW and MWh. I guess it's a regurgitated PR piece that was written by someone who doesn't.

(Ob. Cycling: The Whitstable FNRTTC goes past it.)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 15 November, 2023, 11:10:13 pm
I think burying the cables would be not only a whole lot more expense, it would introduce an whole extra level of sea-bed disturbance. Something similar is being observed in some places with buried (in land) cables and pipes.

Pipelines are generally trenched and protected against overtrawling. I'd have assumed the same kind of protection for cables
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 15 November, 2023, 11:40:52 pm
More electrically based nonsense:

Quote
The specialist global investment manager revealed the Kent-based project, which consists of 373MW of solar and “more than” 150MW of battery energy storage, is expected to be fully completed by the end of 2024.

My bold.

That from a solar power trade comic, where you might hope they know the difference between MW and MWh. I guess it's a regurgitated PR piece that was written by someone who doesn't.

The clue's in the first part of the sentence (my bold).
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 16 November, 2023, 07:32:07 am
I think burying the cables would be not only a whole lot more expense, it would introduce an whole extra level of sea-bed disturbance. Something similar is being observed in some places with buried (in land) cables and pipes.

Pipelines are generally trenched and protected against overtrawling. I'd have assumed the same kind of protection for cables
You'd assume wrong.

seabed Power cables are just draped on the seabed. Very vulnerable to anchors and beam trawling.

Hence why Lewis lost its interconnect a couple of years back.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on 16 November, 2023, 07:43:14 am
There are different environmental consequences to breaking cables and oil pipelines, hence protection or not.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Tim Hall on 16 November, 2023, 08:45:26 am
More electrically based nonsense:

Quote
The specialist global investment manager revealed the Kent-based project, which consists of 373MW of solar and “more than” 150MW of battery energy storage, is expected to be fully completed by the end of 2024.

My bold.

That from a solar power trade comic, where you might hope they know the difference between MW and MWh. I guess it's a regurgitated PR piece that was written by someone who doesn't.

The clue's in the first part of the sentence (my bold).
GPWM
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 16 November, 2023, 12:17:19 pm
I think burying the cables would be not only a whole lot more expense, it would introduce an whole extra level of sea-bed disturbance. Something similar is being observed in some places with buried (in land) cables and pipes.

Pipelines are generally trenched and protected against overtrawling. I'd have assumed the same kind of protection for cables
You'd assume wrong.

seabed Power cables are just draped on the seabed. Very vulnerable to anchors and beam trawling.

Hence why Lewis lost its interconnect a couple of years back.

Every day's a schoolday
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: rafletcher on 16 November, 2023, 05:22:16 pm
See also trans-oceanic data and communications cables, and the keenness of the RN to keep Russian vessels at bay.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 16 November, 2023, 05:42:54 pm
they don't just lay them in a straight line, shorestation to shorestation, but do a detailed seabed survey, trying to avoid draping the cable over seamounts, or sudden crevasses, etc. A nice soft bottom is preferred, to avoid damage from being sawed back and forth by currents.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: ElyDave on 16 November, 2023, 07:36:11 pm
Pipelines may have a concrete coat to stop them floating as well (gas ones definitely), and are then gently puddled into the silt by a couple of meters using a water jet as I understand it.  They may also have rocks dumped along the line as trawl protection at certain points, or even artificial rock "mattresses" where there are exposed sections.  Anything like a junction or a valve that sticks up tends to have a large structural protection.

I'm slightly mind boggled that we don't even shallow-bury the cables.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 16 November, 2023, 11:56:13 pm
There's a whole appendix to the e-book edition of Neal Stephenson's “Cryptonomicon” dedicated to the subject of international telecommunications cables.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 17 November, 2023, 05:58:28 pm
Article about moving bagged waste along 'vacuum' tubes said that the bags were moved by negative pressure.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: hellymedic on 18 November, 2023, 12:01:34 am
Article about moving bagged waste along 'vacuum' tubes said that the bags were moved by negative pressure.

Sub-atmospheric pressure is known as negative pressure in medical & other jargon.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 18 November, 2023, 01:42:24 am
I don't think it's wrong to refer to gauge pressure (which is clearly what they mean in this context) as negative.  Absolute pressure would be another matter.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Feanor on 18 November, 2023, 11:50:47 am
There's a whole appendix to the e-book edition of Neal Stephenson's “Cryptonomicon” dedicated to the subject of international telecommunications cables.

Ah, that's not in the Dead Tree version which I recently finished.

There is, however, a detailed discussion of the Solitaire Cipher by Bruce Schneier, the original author of the cypher.
Stephenson actually had Schneier invent this playing-card based cypher just for the book!
It's a cipher designed to be performed by hand, and required nothing more incriminating than an ordered deck of playing cards.
In the event the Secret Police come to the door, you simply shuffle the deck and the key is destroyed.

In the book, it is referred to as Pontifex.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 18 November, 2023, 01:12:40 pm
And early editions contained an error in the Perl script.  Easily done give its resemblance to line noise.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 18 November, 2023, 05:27:24 pm
I don't think it's wrong to refer to gauge pressure (which is clearly what they mean in this context) as negative.  Absolute pressure would be another matter.
Indeed - so say so.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 19 November, 2023, 11:37:49 pm
Article about moving bagged waste along 'vacuum' tubes said that the bags were moved by negative pressure.

this grinds my gears.
'Vacuums don't suck' is something I'd like taught in all schools.

Regardless of the use of negative, the bags are definitely not moved by negative pressure, but by a pressure differential. In lots of situations, they are moved by the weight of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 20 November, 2023, 05:11:00 pm
Indeed. Seems that very few people know how a 'vacuum' cleaner works. I've a mains beasty that'll take a 20mm spheroid of concrete and a cordless wimp that regurgitates 2mm grit, so I go slowly with the wimp to allow the airflow time to move the crud. Biggest drawback to the beasty is that it doesn't want to let go of the carpet; that's set to about 800W - on 1200W it's rather greedy.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 20 November, 2023, 06:01:04 pm
Seems that very few people know how a 'vacuum' cleaner works.

They've probably got a Dyson.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Pingu on 20 November, 2023, 06:07:21 pm
...'Vacuums don't suck'...

Why does nature abhor them, then?
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Mr Larrington on 20 November, 2023, 06:12:37 pm
“I can assure you, Sir, that this thing sucks!” — Captain Beefheart trying to sell a vacuum cleaner to Aldous Huxley.  Allegedly.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Diver300 on 23 November, 2023, 11:19:11 am
News reports that “oxygen” is being pumped to trapped miners. It’s air. Oxygen would be far harder to get in quantity, adds significant dangers and is no better at displacing the carbon dioxide that builds up and makes people feel breathless.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: JonBuoy on 01 December, 2023, 07:29:31 pm
The woman looking after the self service checkouts in Aldi assured me that the reason why mine kept on whinging was because my rucksack was 'too thick' and that that stopped the items that I was loading into it pressing on the scales in the bagging area.  I managed to prevent myself from recycling the 'too thick' comment and merely suggested that physics doesn't work like that but she wasn't convinced.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 01 December, 2023, 07:53:08 pm
On a related note, I had one refuse to recognise a bag of keto-snacks on the grounds that someone had torn it open and helped themselves to two of them, which I only noticed when I discovered the hole on the third attempt and counted 10 rather than the expected 12.

I then had to explain the problem to the assistant, who was baffled that I'd noticed.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 01 December, 2023, 07:56:05 pm
Kim: I say, Mr Sainsbury, someone has purloined two keto snacks from this packet. This is unacceptable!
Spotty oik: Shit! I'm gonna have to find a new thing to steal for lunch tomorrow!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 01 December, 2023, 08:00:34 pm
On a related note, they've finally activated the barcode-operated gates that release you from the self-checkout area.  Cue lots of beeping and queueueueueing and rummaging for receipts, and more stressed than usual supervisory oiks[1].  I note that one of gates had its service panel insufficiently attached, so I'm looking forward to a Big Clive style try-not-to-look-like-you've-had-an-electric-shock-in-front-of-the-customers incident.


[1] Who are mostly older women, for some reason.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: citoyen on 01 December, 2023, 11:37:50 pm
Article about moving bagged waste along 'vacuum' tubes said that the bags were moved by negative pressure.

this grinds my gears.
'Vacuums don't suck' is something I'd like taught in all schools.

Regardless of the use of negative, the bags are definitely not moved by negative pressure, but by a pressure differential. In lots of situations, they are moved by the weight of the atmosphere.

One for another thread, perhaps, but ITYM difference rather than differential.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 02 December, 2023, 04:36:01 pm
a difference in pressure OR the differential pressure.

Rather OT (maths, perhaps?): Welsh retail sector suffering from 'negative footfall'. How many -persons needed before all previous persons are negated?
Use of positive and negative could occupy a thread - eg, having covid test is +1 (positive test); not having test is 0; how does one have/not have -1 covid test (negative test)? Results are not tests, so positive test could yield zero covid.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 02 December, 2023, 05:04:36 pm
^^^Yebbut positive and negative have meanings beyond mathematics. If you look at e.g. Chambers, being numerically greater than zero is only the 10th meaning on the list of definitions. #1 is 'sure, certain or convinced'.  Similarly, the mathematical meaning of negative is only the 6th definition thereof.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 02 December, 2023, 06:52:22 pm
^^^Yebbut positive and negative have meanings beyond mathematics. If you look at e.g. Chambers, being numerically greater than zero is only the 10th meaning on the list of definitions. #1 is 'sure, certain or convinced'.  Similarly, the mathematical meaning of negative is only the 6th definition thereof.
Don't go bringing common sense into a thread about science (or any thread where "cringe" is involved)!
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Kim on 02 December, 2023, 08:05:39 pm
Use of positive and negative could occupy a thread - eg, having covid test is +1 (positive test); not having test is 0; how does one have/not have -1 covid test (negative test)? Results are not tests, so positive test could yield zero covid.

There's a strong positive = good association in BSL.  Which was a big problem in the Deaf community in the early days of the previous pandemic.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Diver300 on 08 February, 2024, 07:35:26 pm
I came across a power supply that was specified with a maximum rate of change of voltage, and a maximum rate of change of current, in conditions where the load could vary basically intantly.
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: T42 on 09 February, 2024, 08:25:17 am
Use of positive and negative could occupy a thread - eg, having covid test is +1 (positive test); not having test is 0; how does one have/not have -1 covid test (negative test)? Results are not tests, so positive test could yield zero covid.

There's a strong positive = good association in BSL.  Which was a big problem in the Deaf community in the early days of the previous pandemic.

When I had the cardiac stress test that revealed my coronary stenosis the cardiologist said "I'm sorry, but it's positive".  I thought, and he must immediately realised I thought, that that was good, because he added "positive for a problem, that is - negative for you".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Giraffe on 09 February, 2024, 04:56:51 pm
Article about annie lectric car:  "accelerating at velocity".
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: mrcharly-YHT on 16 April, 2024, 07:51:08 am
Quote
Climate change is driving up sea surface temperatures as the warming gases emitted when we burn oil, coal and gas are absorbed by the oceans.
Well, I know CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, but AFAIK, that doesn't drive up the temperature of the water, just makes it slightly acidic.

Bad journalism, I think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68814016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68814016)
Title: Re: Science that makes you cringe
Post by: Asterix, the former Gaul. on 16 April, 2024, 08:51:33 am
On a related note, I had one refuse to recognise a bag of keto-snacks on the grounds that someone had torn it open and helped themselves to two of them, which I only noticed when I discovered the hole on the third attempt and counted 10 rather than the expected 12.

I then had to explain the problem to the assistant, who was baffled that I'd noticed.

OT, but my pack of allegedly 12 toothbrush heads delivered by Amazon Sunday had but one head in it.  The box was sealed with a reusable sticker, which someone had obviously reused after helping themselves to eleven of the heads.  Nice of them to leave me one, I thought.