With all the major advances that science has been fortunate enough to have had this past century, one of the most interesting, at least in my opinion, are particle accelerators., to be more specific, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It works by accelerating two beams of protons to .999999991c, or 99.9999991% of the speed of light through a circle with a circumference of 17 miles. If you do the math the particles velocity turns out to be about 186282.395323458427 miles per second. The beams collide many times during this process and are picked up by six different detectors. Now that a basic background of the LHC has been established, I can move onto my main point. Just nine days after the first use of the LHC, there was mechanical difficulty, and a lethal helium leak occurred. In order to fix it, a month long warming up period must occur so that new parts can then be installed to replace the broken ones. Then another month will be taken to cool it down to the near absolute zero (the temperature at which matter no longer exists as it normally does) temperatures necessary for this machine to function as it should again. This happened back in September of 2008, and presently, the LCH is not scheduled to reopen until September of 2009. As much money as was put into making this, around the six billion dollar mark, not to mention that over ten thousand scientists are involved with it, there should have been more inspections, and safety precautions to prevent something like this from happening. I guess the universe likes to make jokes too, with scientists as one of its victims.
This article was my inspiration for this entry.
-Thomas Pearson
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Physics for scientists and engineers
Biologists think they're biochemists.
Biochemists think they're chemists.
Chemists think they're physical chemists.
Physical chemists think they're physicists.
Physicists think they're gods.
God thinks he's a mathematician.
=) funny stuff
Anyway, I just spent the last seven hours studying for a physics midterm on tuesday, wish me luck. This quarter is all about electricity, electric fields, current batteries and well everything of that sort. This is just amazing. After last quarter I didn't think there was much else that I could possibly learn about how the world works. After learning all about gravity and mechanical energy and friction and fluid dynamics and thermodynamics and resonance frequencies and wave patterns... I'm no where near done. It's absolutely amazing how much of our known universe has already been explained.
God bless Newton. Dam near nothing that makes my life easy would be possible without that brilliant SOB. Even if he did steal calculus from Leibniz. Mind you, I hated physics when I first started taking it. Much like any mathematician at heart, I hated all the sciences. The only thing I ever thought worth while was math, considering everything else just an extension of the basic ideas discovered in math. But I must admit, after learning the tiny bit of physics that I have learned, and spending countless hours perfecting my knowledge of what I have learned, I often find myself interpreting the world through physics concepts. I've taken quite a liking to physics, which makes me less impartial towards other sciences like chemistry and biology.
I find myself calculating how many calories I'm burning at the gym using concepts from energy conservation and thermodynamics. I try to explain why I observe certain things through physics, like why rapidly moving my thumb over a straw sucks in liquid. Fun stuff, will never hold a candle to pure math though. =)
-Osvaldo Enriquez
Biochemists think they're chemists.
Chemists think they're physical chemists.
Physical chemists think they're physicists.
Physicists think they're gods.
God thinks he's a mathematician.
=) funny stuff
Anyway, I just spent the last seven hours studying for a physics midterm on tuesday, wish me luck. This quarter is all about electricity, electric fields, current batteries and well everything of that sort. This is just amazing. After last quarter I didn't think there was much else that I could possibly learn about how the world works. After learning all about gravity and mechanical energy and friction and fluid dynamics and thermodynamics and resonance frequencies and wave patterns... I'm no where near done. It's absolutely amazing how much of our known universe has already been explained.
God bless Newton. Dam near nothing that makes my life easy would be possible without that brilliant SOB. Even if he did steal calculus from Leibniz. Mind you, I hated physics when I first started taking it. Much like any mathematician at heart, I hated all the sciences. The only thing I ever thought worth while was math, considering everything else just an extension of the basic ideas discovered in math. But I must admit, after learning the tiny bit of physics that I have learned, and spending countless hours perfecting my knowledge of what I have learned, I often find myself interpreting the world through physics concepts. I've taken quite a liking to physics, which makes me less impartial towards other sciences like chemistry and biology.
I find myself calculating how many calories I'm burning at the gym using concepts from energy conservation and thermodynamics. I try to explain why I observe certain things through physics, like why rapidly moving my thumb over a straw sucks in liquid. Fun stuff, will never hold a candle to pure math though. =)
-Osvaldo Enriquez
Far Out Goals and Cool Planes
Today, you probably hear a lot of hubbub about "going green", the concerns over the size of one's carbon footprint, or the ridiculous antics one would go through to save some gas. I suppose this could be the result of a "trickle-down theory" from governmental authorities above who are concerned about the environment. Or could there actually be a "trickle-up theory", where the concerns of the general public are influencing the higher-ups? Regardless, NASA is working on the design of a new airplane. There's an article on NASA's website (www.NASA.gov) titled "The Quest: A Silent, Carbonless Airplane". After reading the title, my first thought was that the article was going to be about the goals for the design of a new military plane (most likely a reconaissance spy plane of some sort). I had no idea why they would want it to be carbonless though. I thought carbon fiber was a good thing, as in bicycles and cars.
As I read through the article, it made me realize that the title was somewhat deceiving; it required some terms to be redefined for an accurate understanding. The notion of an airplane to be silent running is defined as "containing the noise of the aircraft to the airport boundaries." This means that a conversation can be held just outside of the boundaries of an airport, without having to raise your voice. The term carbonless means that there are no net carbon emissions from the combustion of fuel. The plants that are used to synthesize the aviation biofuel would take in an equal amount of carbon (when growing) as the fuel releases when combusted. The main goal is that the plane's emissions would have zero effect on the atmosphere.
The achievement of such a lofty goal is quite a ways in the future, and Collier realized that. The author of the article reported that during the interview, Collier outlined an approach to coming close to the goals into three stages. The three were titled "N-plus-1," "N-plus-2" and "N-plus-3." As technology advances, so would our standing in the three stage process. N-plus-1 involves a plane that is very similar to the ones we see today, a "tube-and-wing" aircraft that has technological and structural advancements that cut fuel consumption, drag, and cooling flow. N-plus-2 showed a plane that had design modifications for a shorter fuselage than N-plus-1 and more wing. N-plus-3, according to Collier, is open for ideas. The designers are leaning toward a blended-wing aircraft. An artist's rendition of the future "N-plus-3" can be seen here.
In my honest opinion, this project is an ambitious one. I like it. I want to design and play with cool planes some day. :)
If you're interested and want to read more about this, click here.
-George Wong
As I read through the article, it made me realize that the title was somewhat deceiving; it required some terms to be redefined for an accurate understanding. The notion of an airplane to be silent running is defined as "containing the noise of the aircraft to the airport boundaries." This means that a conversation can be held just outside of the boundaries of an airport, without having to raise your voice. The term carbonless means that there are no net carbon emissions from the combustion of fuel. The plants that are used to synthesize the aviation biofuel would take in an equal amount of carbon (when growing) as the fuel releases when combusted. The main goal is that the plane's emissions would have zero effect on the atmosphere.
The achievement of such a lofty goal is quite a ways in the future, and Collier realized that. The author of the article reported that during the interview, Collier outlined an approach to coming close to the goals into three stages. The three were titled "N-plus-1," "N-plus-2" and "N-plus-3." As technology advances, so would our standing in the three stage process. N-plus-1 involves a plane that is very similar to the ones we see today, a "tube-and-wing" aircraft that has technological and structural advancements that cut fuel consumption, drag, and cooling flow. N-plus-2 showed a plane that had design modifications for a shorter fuselage than N-plus-1 and more wing. N-plus-3, according to Collier, is open for ideas. The designers are leaning toward a blended-wing aircraft. An artist's rendition of the future "N-plus-3" can be seen here.
In my honest opinion, this project is an ambitious one. I like it. I want to design and play with cool planes some day. :)
If you're interested and want to read more about this, click here.
-George Wong
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Real Genius
It's an 80's film starring Val Kilmer, pretty funny. It's about a couple exceptionally bright young physicists who are tricked, by their greedy physics professor, into making a weapon for the military. Once they discover that what they had created was going to be used as a weapon, the young team comes up with a very clever plan to disable it, and get some revenge on their devious professor as well.
What they actually invented was a laser that didn't lose energy over distance. One specific scene from the movie I remember is when another student comes up to the group and asks what they think it will be used for. To which one of the students replies, "who cares let the engineers find out a use for it." This of course leads to when they discover it will be a weapon and plot to disable it. This however made me think about the ethics in science, and science fiction.
Science fiction is filled with brilliant scientists who spent their lives trying to create something only to regret it once achieving their goal. For example, Dr. Frankenstein discovered the secret to life but spent the rest of his days trying to destroy his only creation (for unjust cause but still he tried). The invisible man at first saw only the benefits of being invisible, and when it was achieved he strived to return to normal.
Oppenheimer even regretted ever being a part of the Manhattan project once it was all said and done with.
Would the world be better without such creations? Does the person who invented gun powder regret it and wish they could take it back? There is still the ongoing debate about the bomb, whether it saved more lives than it took. And gun powder can be used for pretty fire works...
Where is the line? I'm a budding mechanical engineer. If I designed a brand new super powerful gun, but never once fired it myself, how bad should I feel?
-Osvaldo Enriquez
What they actually invented was a laser that didn't lose energy over distance. One specific scene from the movie I remember is when another student comes up to the group and asks what they think it will be used for. To which one of the students replies, "who cares let the engineers find out a use for it." This of course leads to when they discover it will be a weapon and plot to disable it. This however made me think about the ethics in science, and science fiction.
Science fiction is filled with brilliant scientists who spent their lives trying to create something only to regret it once achieving their goal. For example, Dr. Frankenstein discovered the secret to life but spent the rest of his days trying to destroy his only creation (for unjust cause but still he tried). The invisible man at first saw only the benefits of being invisible, and when it was achieved he strived to return to normal.
Oppenheimer even regretted ever being a part of the Manhattan project once it was all said and done with.
Would the world be better without such creations? Does the person who invented gun powder regret it and wish they could take it back? There is still the ongoing debate about the bomb, whether it saved more lives than it took. And gun powder can be used for pretty fire works...
Where is the line? I'm a budding mechanical engineer. If I designed a brand new super powerful gun, but never once fired it myself, how bad should I feel?
-Osvaldo Enriquez
The Clash of Metals: Steel vs. Aluminum
One of my favorite hobbies is the outdoor sport, mountain biking. The feeling of triumph after climbing a long, rocky hilltop trail is like no other. There are also the teeth-chattering, shirt-flapping, winding descents. Hold that thought. Teeth-chattering? The comfort and quality of a ride is a big deal to any cyclist, regardless if they are on or off road. And teeth-chattering is definitely not an adjective that a cyclist would want to use to describe their ride. When a harsh ride is encountered on a bicycle, cyclists often make the common mistake of attributing the harshness of the ride to the material that the bicycle is made of. There is an old wives' tale that says that aluminum frames produce a body-jarring ride, and that steel frames yield a buttery-smooth ride. I have ridden both aluminum and steel frames on the same mountain trails, and never noticed a difference in how smooth or harsh the ride was.
When looking for a topic to post a blog about, the validity of that myth was the most interesting that I had in mind. I Google-searched the query, "bicycles + steel tubing vs. aluminum", and found an article written by Sheldon Brown, a man that I consider as the Internet's Bicycle Guru. (I often find myself reading one of his articles as a DIY guide to fixing my bicycles.) In this article, he says that the material is not to be blamed for discomfort (or praised for comfort). Rather, the troublemakers are things that the rider can choose. The common factors of discomfort that Brown points out are rider position, tire choice, saddle choice and bicycle geometry. He also goes into an argument showing that both materials can achieve the same desired riding qualities but with different tube diameters and wall thicknesses. I would dive further into the details, but I don't want to go overboard on this post and bore the reader about tube thickness, diameter and other bicycle frame what-nots. So there you have it. If you ever claimed that the stiffness (or harshness) of ride was because of the bicycle's material, you're wrong! But don't feel alone, I have made this mistake as well.
If you are interested in finding out more about frame materials and what qualities they produce in a bicycle, go here.
-George Wong
When looking for a topic to post a blog about, the validity of that myth was the most interesting that I had in mind. I Google-searched the query, "bicycles + steel tubing vs. aluminum", and found an article written by Sheldon Brown, a man that I consider as the Internet's Bicycle Guru. (I often find myself reading one of his articles as a DIY guide to fixing my bicycles.) In this article, he says that the material is not to be blamed for discomfort (or praised for comfort). Rather, the troublemakers are things that the rider can choose. The common factors of discomfort that Brown points out are rider position, tire choice, saddle choice and bicycle geometry. He also goes into an argument showing that both materials can achieve the same desired riding qualities but with different tube diameters and wall thicknesses. I would dive further into the details, but I don't want to go overboard on this post and bore the reader about tube thickness, diameter and other bicycle frame what-nots. So there you have it. If you ever claimed that the stiffness (or harshness) of ride was because of the bicycle's material, you're wrong! But don't feel alone, I have made this mistake as well.
If you are interested in finding out more about frame materials and what qualities they produce in a bicycle, go here.
-George Wong
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Just rambling
This week, I thought I would change the mood a little bit from last time. I was thinking about a subject I heard about a while ago, and it struck me as odd that someone would put so much thought into the subject. That subject is physics. More specifically, how they apply to a group of fictional characters known as meta-humans. They even have written a book, The Science of Superheroes, about it, going into great detail how superhuman abilities from the comics, cartoons, and movies could or could not work within the confines of the physical world. And the one of the few things I can say about that is that when you try to mix fictional characters and abilities with nonfictional rules, it never turns out well. Take super strength, flight, and super speed, for instance. With super strength, not only would a person be dense enough to literally leave cracks in the floor when just walking, if they tried to lift anything, it would just cave in over them because their hands do not have a big enough surface area to distribute the object over, so it would be like poking a sheet of metal with a pin, while a person could possibly output enough energy to lift it, because of the fact that the area actually in contact with the sheet is so small, only the part touching the pin would be lifted. With flight, a person would need to be able to control, with their mind, either gravity itself, or a force that is stronger than gravity. Since no person is capable of this, this super power is out of the question right here, but for the sake of completeness, let's assume that a person somehow was capable of this. Now, the power of flight does not include the power of invulnerability, so basically anything you fly into, including bugs, would cause major damage to that person's body, thus rendering this power obsolete. Now, for super speed, a person would have to have a huge energy source, and be immune to friction., or at least close to it. Since the human body is only capable of breaking down the substances digested, not enough energy could be used that way, even if the person's metabolism was super fast. The only way to get enough energy required for an endeavor like this would be to have an external power source that is capable of creating energy in the form that a human body uses it, and it would also have to transfer that energy directly to the muscle tissues. DC Comics tried to explain The Flash's powers in a similar manner to this, and called it The Speed Force, except they took it one step further. In the DC universe, The Speed Force is an entire dimension of energy that is the “source of all speed,” and is what allows The Flash the ability to run faster than the speed of light. This contradicts physics, however, because in order to run faster than the speed of light, one must have infinite energy. This fits into the idea of the Speed Force. What does not fit, is the conservation of energy. According to the conservation of energy, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In order to have an infinite energy supply, energy would have to be created, and this could not possibly work. Not to mention the fact that somehow no one who has taken the name of Flash in the comics has ever had friction or durability to worry about. According to DC, this “infinite” energy source is also able to keep the people using it from being affected by both friction, and all the objects that they run into with every step. Now, to sum up my views on this, I have only this to say: when super powers are involved, the laws of physics are not.
-Thomas Pearson
Saturday, April 11, 2009
We are in Serious Trouble
I was browsing cnet.com recently, and I noticed a story that caught my attention, entitled "Just how vulnerable is the electrical grid?" After reading it, it occurred to me that the huge network known as the internet is the culprit of many a crime, as well as the conduit for possible crimes. What struck me as extremely odd though, was that a company in charge of something as important as creating and distributing electricity would leave themselves open to numerous forms of cyberattack. Internet Protocol, or IP for short, has never been known for its safety, and it is surprising that such an important network would be able to be accessed using this protocol. According to the article, Industrial Defender, a computer security company, tested the network about 100 times and found about 34,000 vulnerabilities in the network. That's right, that is thirty-four thousand different ways that someone could break into the network, and according to another article, a group has already done so. Apparently, whoever they were, they were able to implant software onto the compromised systems that could potentially be used to disrupt the systems.
While modernization is usally taken as a good thing, I think it is safe to say that sometimes it is better, and safer, not to, especially when the best reason to do so is for ease of access by employees. In a computer networking class that I took in high school, I learned that when it comes to a network, especially one for a business, the number one priority is network security, all else comes after this. It would seem that these utility companies have either forgotten or forsook this.
The links to the articles mentioned are here and here
-Thomas Pearson
While modernization is usally taken as a good thing, I think it is safe to say that sometimes it is better, and safer, not to, especially when the best reason to do so is for ease of access by employees. In a computer networking class that I took in high school, I learned that when it comes to a network, especially one for a business, the number one priority is network security, all else comes after this. It would seem that these utility companies have either forgotten or forsook this.
The links to the articles mentioned are here and here
-Thomas Pearson
W.L. Putnam competition
Well this is just a coincidence. Last time I wrote about the novel "A Beautiful Mind" (I don't think underline is an option). According to that biography, John Nash was obsessed with the Putnam competition, mostly because he never managed to win and the winner gets a scholarship to Harvard (he was also obsessed with Harvard). Well the Putnam is still around, and weekly training seminars have just started here at UCR. They're Fridays 3:10-4:00 pm in surge 277 in case anyone wants to give it a shot, and yes, I am a nerd, but I love it. =)
The Putnam is basically a super hard math test with very unorthodox questions. Most of the questions require you to present an in depth and original proof. Although the proofs required are no where near as complicated as proving say, L'Hopital's theorem, they are tricky and require quite a bit of clever manipulation from the participant. Just getting the right answer would not guarantee all the points, or even any for that matter. The proof is the important part.
A participant can enter a maximum of three times, and cannot have a college degree. So no super advanced math is required, and to be honest no math at all is required. It's all finding the right pattern or whatever and being able to express it unambiguously.
The actual competition will not be held until December, so there's a nice long amount of time to train.
Why this competition appeals so much to me: Not only because it's famous and it's neat to participate in something famous, but math is wonderful! It's amazing to take a situation that does not directly have anything to do with math or numbers and depict it perfectly through numbers and formulas.
Anyway, visit http://math.scu.edu/putnam/ if you want more information.
-Osvaldo Enriquez
The Putnam is basically a super hard math test with very unorthodox questions. Most of the questions require you to present an in depth and original proof. Although the proofs required are no where near as complicated as proving say, L'Hopital's theorem, they are tricky and require quite a bit of clever manipulation from the participant. Just getting the right answer would not guarantee all the points, or even any for that matter. The proof is the important part.
A participant can enter a maximum of three times, and cannot have a college degree. So no super advanced math is required, and to be honest no math at all is required. It's all finding the right pattern or whatever and being able to express it unambiguously.
The actual competition will not be held until December, so there's a nice long amount of time to train.
Why this competition appeals so much to me: Not only because it's famous and it's neat to participate in something famous, but math is wonderful! It's amazing to take a situation that does not directly have anything to do with math or numbers and depict it perfectly through numbers and formulas.
Anyway, visit http://math.scu.edu/putnam/ if you want more information.
-Osvaldo Enriquez
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A Beautiful Mind
A Beautiful Mind is a very amazing movie depicted the life and struggle of John Nash. He was a very intelligent mathematician who eventually developed schizophrenia but did eventually "recover" from it. After decades of struggling with paranoid delusions and absurd impulsions he eventually was able to control those delusions, and was able to finally live a normal life again. Now the movie depicted John Nash as, although very pompous about his own genius, a genuinely decent person. I recently finished the actual novel "A Beautiful Mind" and he was a jerk! His first kid was with a woman he cared very little about, and although he had a very good job at MIT he refused to support her or the child in any way. He was constantly verbally abusive to her, and actually married his wife while still involved with her. Smashing good read though.
Anyway, math is delicious. Math is wonderful, amazing and beautiful. I am currently a mechanical engineering major and although there are many things about engineering that do appeal to me, like building super cool things, I would love nothing more than to be a mathematician. Why don't I pursue a career in math? Because I am far too materialistic. John Nash was well off but that's mostly because he came from a well off family. Einstein even was pretty strapped for cash up until he won the nobel prize. What I'm trying to say is even the best of the brightest scholars do not make enough to satisfy my materialism. That's why I'm going into engineering. I feel even a mediocre engineer working for a good company can make more than Einstein, pure career wise. I am not known for mediocrity though, I'm going to be one hell of an engineer, Tony Stark status. Or at least Will Smith in Seven Pounds, also a very good movie. I do want to get my doctorate in mathematics someday, but then it will be mostly for fun, and of course the title. I hope this is 250 words.
Anyway, math is delicious. Math is wonderful, amazing and beautiful. I am currently a mechanical engineering major and although there are many things about engineering that do appeal to me, like building super cool things, I would love nothing more than to be a mathematician. Why don't I pursue a career in math? Because I am far too materialistic. John Nash was well off but that's mostly because he came from a well off family. Einstein even was pretty strapped for cash up until he won the nobel prize. What I'm trying to say is even the best of the brightest scholars do not make enough to satisfy my materialism. That's why I'm going into engineering. I feel even a mediocre engineer working for a good company can make more than Einstein, pure career wise. I am not known for mediocrity though, I'm going to be one hell of an engineer, Tony Stark status. Or at least Will Smith in Seven Pounds, also a very good movie. I do want to get my doctorate in mathematics someday, but then it will be mostly for fun, and of course the title. I hope this is 250 words.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)