Three things to prove that one should not be overly selective regarding sources of science reading

Three different sources, all entertaining.

Thing one: Three British universities are about to start a project that looks to harvest re-usable material from human faecal matter. The “material” will include water, methane, electrolytes, etc. and the machine to do that harvesting – a lattice-like filter – should be portable when finished. (The Engineer)

Thing two: Britain and Belgium counts the largest population percentages who suffer from hay fever. Birch trees are earliest out to produce pollen during the hay fever season, and sufferers should also avoid “trigger-foods” like celery. (Daily Mail)

Thing three: “Sexual deprivation increases ethanol intake”… in fruit flies. This can apparently be mapped to humans. What gives? (Science)

Seen anything interesting? Let me know!

I never tire of watching these (as cool as the final frontier gets* **)

It is Friday. Nay, it is an excellent Friday. And what does one do on excellent Fridays? One watches youtube videos***. Duh.

I do have a predilection for videos of things that have been propelled, one way or another, into space, and then allowed to plummet back to Earth. Here are some of my favourites. Enjoy.

 

Do you have any recommendations?

* My opinion.

** I am aware that I have ended that title on a preposition. Apologies.

*** Not always. Please tell me I’m not the only one.

One thing happening in “mad science” and one thing happening in MFL education

Thing one: The “truth” behind the Startram is still being debated, but the science-fiction fan (and, well, scientist) in me is willing to entertain the general “coolness” of it (in a sort of Jules Verne-fashion), for the time being. And maybe pick it apart a little bit (that would be the scientist-part). The crux is that we humans, nay Earthlings, supposedly have the technology and funds (in times like these?) to build a colossal maglev (magnetic levitation – this bit is not sci-fi, and actually cool) tunnel straight into the stratosphere, to send humans on their merry way – in train-cars – into low orbit. The electronics will have to be comprised of superconductors to withstand the temperatures in space, and the tunnel will have to be “vacuumed”, so that the supersonic train does not disintegrate due to friction.

Frankly, I do not think that the theoretical science is faulty. However, I do not even want to think about the risk assessment involved, and I find the idea that it will cost less than some of our maglev land-railways… the excrement of male cows.

Thing one, v.2: The BBC is to air a new programme teaching Mandarin Chinese to young learners. I find this an admirable initiative, and with the gradual rolling out of more and more foreign languages in secondary schools today, it could be useful for people to learn about tonality at a young age. However, characters are completely different from the alphabet, so the effect of this type of learning may not extend beyond “travel phrase-book”, i.e. learning by recognition. Then again, I do believe that, at the most basic, the programme aims to make young children curious about foreign languages, and will therefore tune in. (What?! I might learn something too. You don’t know my life.)

Simple English Wikipedia

Firstly, I would like to apologise again about the delayed podcast, and general neglect of the blog, this week. My computer broke, and I had a hard time recovering all of my resources despite regular backups; this alongside some epic deadlines in my daytime occupation… excuses excuses.

Now I have been re-united with my machine, and while I re-configure my podcast schedule… are you aware of the Simple English Wikipedia? I think I first heard of it a while ago, but only recently paid a visit. It does what it says on the tin: explains things, but in simple English.

Firstly, yes, I am breaking academic laws by not just referencing wikipedia, but actively pointing you towards it. However, with growing numbers of organisations seeking Wikipedians, i.e. people who tinker with the encyclopaedia to make sure things are right, why not investigate its development?

After all, it seems to fit in well with part of the commonly percepted science communication philosophy: explain complicated things without the jargon, while maintaining the intellectual merits of the topic. Avoiding patronisation and “dumbing down” give added brownie points.

Opting for home turf, I made a beeline for the physics page, aiming to pretentiously cast an opinion and then extrapolate this to the whole project. For your unnecessary information, this is what I thought:

• The “front” page provides a good enough introduction to the subject. Physicists study the behaviour of matter and energy in space and time; they also extensively make use of symmetry and balance in their work.
• Under “Physicists”, they’ve included this Rutherford quote: “Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.”
• There are a LOT of links to various sub-sections of physics.
• Like the happy wiki-surfer I am, I randomly select Mechanics.
• I am greeted by an animated gif of a Newton’s Cradle in motion.
• There is talk, and more links, about Aristotle, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, leading us on to Newtonian Mechanics.
• There is no link for Newtonian Mechanics.
• I am told that mechanics is a study of forces and movement, and that interactions between bodies are either Strong, Weak, electromagnetic or gravitational.
• More links are offered, to different aspects of mechanics.
• I randomly pick acoustics.
• “Acoustics is the study of sound.” And that’s it.

The tone is very neutral and factual, purely for the purpose of information.

I really like this initiative, and think it could be of great use. At the moment, it provides, in my humble simpleton’s opinion, information for pupils at approximately GCSE level to do their homework (think “distance = velocity x time”), but there is clearly scope for expansion.

Anybody want to shoot me down on this one?

There will be posts

Dear all,

I am solemnly apologetic for the negligence that I have bestowed upon this blog over the past week…

… and now to quit the flowery language that got me into trouble earlier on today, I can let you know that said negligence (and the duties that caused it) has landed me with:

• sleep deprivation;
• a bunch of small scrapes on my hands that I cannot remember causing (no, I have not been inebriated in the week);
• a Thursday spent in total confusion (see above bracket);
• one missing sock (see above bracket);
• a great podcast idea that has escaped me because I didn’t have my notepad handy as it was mentioned, but be damned if it doesn’t come back to me;
• a grammatical error, as I was complaining about grammatical errors (see bracket two points above).

That last one coloured me particularly mortified. It was even one of those classic moments when, even as I expressed the words, I knew it could only end badly. So please, if you spot any errors at all on here or in the podcasts, do let me know.

If I’m going to be shamed at large, I might as well have learnt something from it. (Like the last point taught me to stick to my own blog, and stop minding other people’s business.)

Regular service of posts will be resumed this evening. Thank you.