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: archy 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: archy 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: archy 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: