Silicon Valley Redneck

At last...

I'd long been wondering when Grant would get around to this one:

On the latest Mythbusters - the JATO-car "This time for sure!", which deviates ever further from the original yarn, while retaining the Impala - he's finally hooked up a computer-game steering wheel and pedals to the RC box, to allow driving the 1:1-scale RC car like a car.

There's still the matter of having a totally separate radio-command system for firing the rockets, but I'm guessing that's a COTS secure system made for HPR or possibly blasting.

Oh, and on the Science! front?  They keep bandying about a conversion factor for thrust to horsepower.  There's no such thing.  The units are non-equivalent.  Thrust is force (pounds, Newtons, dynes: mass times acceleration, e.g., kg*m/s^2); power is force times distance per unit time (horsepower, Watts, BTU/hour, e.g.: kg*m^2/s^3).  Yeah, you could assign a rocket a horsepower rating based on fuel consumption or (almost equivalently) heat output, but that ain't how horsepower ratings work (though if you used BTU/hour instead, it would make sense: treat the rocket as a heater).

And in the department of I could'a told you that: if you're going for maximum range with your rocket car, and you're not giving it fins like a Cadillac (nor RCS, nor engine gimballing, nor active aerodynamic control surfaces, nor any other way of keeping it pointed straight), best results will be obtained by timing Brennschluß for just before the car leaves the ramp.  Not a couple of seconds later.  If memory serves, they'd already seen the nose-comes-down-leaving-the-ramp effect (because Gravity, duh) in at least one earlier episode (possibly involving an old TV show about hazardous ducks or something), so it should be no surprise that the thrust vector, immediately post-ramp, would be Highly Suboptimal.

Alarming new discovery!

It's possible to make U-233 from thorium!

Uh, guys?  I found that bit of enlightenment in the open literature quite some time ago.

Like, when I was a senior in high school.

And we walked fifty stadia to school every morning, keeping watch for saber-toothed tigers.  That's how long ago it was!

Terrorist EMP menace!

Well... that's the buzz, anyway.

Suppose Iran, or some non-state actor, got hold of a nuke and a way of lofting it?  All it takes is one little nuke in the upper atmosphere to knock out everything electrical in the U.S., right?

Um.  Let's take a look at an actual EMP event, shall we?  Starfish Prime caused significant disruption (not total destruction) of electrical and electronic systems 900 miles away.

And that was a 1.4 MT bomb.  Not a 14 KT fission bomb; a bloody great fusion bomb.

So... to create widespread destruction... our hypothetical enemy needs to use his hypothetical fission bomb that any serious industrial power ought to be able to build (but many seem to struggle with)... and use it to light off a megaton-range H-bomb, which is not widely regarded as being an easily-built item even given the fission trigger.

And then they need a missile capable of delivering that H-bomb (close to a ton, for a well-evolved design in 1958; likely much more for a first try) around 250 miles above the middle of the U.S.  And, if it doesn't have the range to do that from their own territory, they'll need a place to launch it from - maybe a cargo ship; I don't think Cuba would want to play that game this year.

And, looking at the effects described for Starfish Prime, just one of those bombs would create a Big Annoying Inconvenience.  What did the feller say about striking at a king?  We'd have plenty of resources left to track down the perpetrator and retaliate memorably.  A successful, properly crippling attack would need several H-bombs, and several missiles, and... well, basically, we're looking at Russia, or China, or just maybe France or England being able to pull it off.

And, somehow, I don't think anyone's been testing H-bombs without us and the Russians noticing - nor the big missiles, for that matter.  So, the sneak attack by a new Power would involve a bunch of untested hardware.  How good do we think their mathematicians and rocket plumbers are?

Denialism

Sometime during my recent episode of workery-swampery, I saw something go past on Slashdot about a push to get Climate Change (i.e., catatonic anthropomorphic manbearpig) put on the same footing as evolution, and deniers roundly denounced in all public schools.

Because the two are just exactly the same, you know.  And we've all heard what modern biology has to say about evolution:

1. New species descend from older forms through the accumulation of random variations, subject to the pressures of reproductive fitness in their local environments.
2. Therefore, we must establish a global single-payer health-care system under the auspices of the United Nations, and anyone who disagrees is a denier and guilty of crimes against humanity!

Er, wait.

 

Ah, so that's where he's spending his summer vacation.

Apparently, there's a HUGE CYLINDRICAL ALIEN SPACESHIP right near Mercury, revealed by a recent coronal mass ejection.

Except that the spaceship itself need not be huge, nor cylindrical; that could just as well be the shadow of the protective field of a much smaller craft.  Say, something the size of a police box.

Yeah, it's just the TARDIS, right where the Doctor parked it on April 22.  Another fortnight or so, and he'll get bored and go find another adventure, just wait and see.

Or, wait: does Mercury have a magnetic field?  That hole in the CME doesn't look quite right for a planetary magnetic field (though I'm not sure of the perspective), but a big black magnetic anomaly (like the one We Weren't Told About a decade ago) lying on the surface might just do the trick.

 

Trust your instruments, Luke!

Another back episode of Mythbusters: walking, swimming, or driving in instrument meteorological conditions (well, blindfolded).

Surprise!  The human inner ear is not a precision navigational instrument.  It's good for short-term balance, but not inertial navigation.

This is why pilots learning to handle IMC need to be taught to ignore their feelings and watch the attitude indicator and gyrocompass, which are precision navigational instruments.

Somehow, this aspect wasn't even mentioned.

Also not mentioned, when the Three Stooges were playing with Tannerite ("binary explosive"): how's the stuff behave if you set fire to it, as might happen in a car crash with gasoline and running engines present?  'Twon't detonate, sure, but will a trunkload of the stuff deflagrate enthusiastically enough to pass for an explosion?  This ought to have been demonstrated: "Look, here's a jar of the stuff, mixed, and we set fire to it, thus.  No earth-shattering kaboom."  (Given its relationship to flash powder, I'm not confident that a complete lack of kaboom would be the outcome.)

Oh, and Mr. Voiceover Guy?  Safety before mixing is a general property of binary explosives.  Safety after mixing is a property of Tannerite and some others... but there are plenty more that, once mixed, will go blooey at the slightest provocation.

 

Pigs 9; British bipeds 4.

Late lunch hour was time to watch some Mythbusters; today, the "tossing pigs out of helicopters" edition.

As is often the case, I'm bothered by their treatment of the main myth: "It's sometimes possible to dodge a bullet fired at a distance" somehow morphed into "It's sometimes possible to dodge a bullet fired at a distance from a modern sniper rifle."

The results might have been very different if they'd used a different bullet-flanger.  A Trapdoor Springfield, say, or Brown Bess, or even a .44 Magnum with a high-muzzle-flash load, rather than the latest high-velocity, low-signature technology.

And you'd think, after the pig toss, they'd have headed off into the sunset talking about making sausage....

 

Wha...?

Slashdot links to this tale of magnetical horrors in homes in Ohio.  Goin' to the State Supreme Court, forsooth!

The horrors:

Their TV screens were distorted. Cordless phones ran into interference. Computer hard drives were corrupted.

Er, wait.

TV screens distorted: well, maybe, if it's a strong field and you have an old CRT TV.  Flatscreen, no way.

Interference with cordless phones: bullshit.  There's just no freakin' way a static magnetic field will interfere with a cordless phone... unless it's strong enough to pick the thing up by its steel parts.

Hard drives corrupted: just how strong is the field we're talking about, here?  Strong enough to pick up hammers?  'Cause a field that'll mess with the data on a disk platter is going to have some pretty dang obvious effects on any ferrous objects in the vicinity.

I say the plaintiffs are flat-out lying about these purported effects, and diffidently suggest that the actual field strength inside their living space due to the magnetized joists is less than the Earth's natural magnetic field.  Easy test: walk through the house with a compass.  Does it mostly point somewhere near north?  You don't have an alarmingly strong artificial field.

Most likely they've fallen under the influence of some snake-oil peddler who detected feeble fields in the vicinity of the joists and has now convinced them that their lives are in danger, so they're making up unlikely or impossible phenomena, which the courts have so far failed to recognize as such.

 

Evolution and such

I'll start this out with a stunning revelation:

I don't believe in evolution.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: that would be like believing in the postman.

What's the point of believing in something that's patently true?  Evolution doesn't require belief, any more than gravity requires belief.  It just goes on by itself, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.

As for the truth of evolution?  Well, I've put enough time and attention into studying the subject to conclude that the evidence for evolution as an ongoing process, and as the origin of (currently extant) species, is thoroughly persuasive.  I have a strong suspicion that there are multiple mechanisms at work, some of them not yet understood, but evolution per se is about as well established as a scientific fact can get outside the tidy, repeatable physical sciences.

OK, now: hands up all those who have put in the effort to grok evolution for themselves.

Those who still have their hands down, and who believe in evolution: do you have any actual basis for your belief?  Or do you just believe because someone told you it was true?

There's a point here, when it comes to evaluating politicians' attitudes toward science.  Truly understanding the evidence for evolution, and its importance to modern biology, isn't something you pick up on the way through the public school system.  You have to spend a good many hours of your adult life studying the material.

So: suppose you're a busy politician, or indeed a busy person of any trade.  Why would you spend time studying biology?  Does it have any direct relevance to your career, or your daily life?  Does it, like attending church, offer opportunities for social networking?

Of course not.  So chances are, any position on evolution taken by a politician is based on second-hand opinion, same as for most other people.  Evolution, unless you're a biologist, is a prime candidate for rational ignorance.  There's just no compelling need for most people to understand the subject in any detail.

And, no, I'm not in any way suggesting that creationism be taught in science class, any more than Communism should be taught in economics class.  Science class is for fact-based science, in which category evolution qualifies (if taught properly), while creationism most assuredly does not.  (On the other hand, I think biology teachers should be prepared to give a coherent explanation of the evidence for evolution, not just to answer the inevitable creationist questions with "Shut up, kid.")

Update: The Royal Society, in a desperate attempt not to be mistaken for a moose, has come out in favor of showing respect for creationism.

The statement quotes Reiss saying, "Creationism has no scientific basis."

He goes on to say, "However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.

That sounds about right to me.

The Universe is a weird and wonderful place...

...and the realm of discovery is far from used up.

Proximity to the Sun may affect - slightly - rates of radioactive decay.

No, I haven't had time to read the paper yet, and I don't really have the background to make sense of it in any case.  It's just... interesting.

Practical implications?  Apart from radiocarbon dating maybe being off by a tiny fraction?  Well, maybe.  Leaning to manipulate decay rates could be useful, if it's possible to make large changes in a controlled space: this could be a decontamination tool, or a weapon, or both... but probably not any time soon.