It has been an interesting last few weeks as I interviewed for positions, debated career changes, tuned down job offers, accepted a job in a new state, got food poisoning and drove a 26 foot moving van with a full car trailer across several states. But I am glad to say that so far I love my new job. For those that don’t know, Monday I started as a Pressure Vessel Engineer (working primarily in Non-Destructive Examination of existing systems) at Stennis Space Center.
As an engineer I am a slave to efficiency, and enamored of new technology. So like many I can’t help but be passionate about new green tech. But the overly logical scientist in me screams in frustration when I read about people who worry about “vampire” energy, or composting toilets when there are so many larger problems in the world. Yes it’s true that “every little bit counts”. But as someone who is familiar with and actually understands “The Butterfly Effect” (as opposed to just romanticizing about it), I know that the ‘little bit’ doesn’t usually count for much.
I understand that worrying about the little things, and doing everything you can to reduce your footprint in part is a silent protest of many as a way of saying “I care about the environment and I will not be held accountable” without going out and picketing your friends, neighbors, and coworkers for owning SUVs. “In the world but not of the world” comes to mind.
Now that I’ve ranted about that small environmental/societal contradiction, the other part that gets my goat is when people don’t use numbers to support their claims. If you don’t have science to back up your claims then your just full of opinions and ambition, not to mention lies (intentional or unintentional). I understand that numbers don’t always tell the full story, and can be manipulated. See Wind myths: Turbines kill birds and bats. But that is no reason to make claims without any support whatsoever. (Unless of course you qualify the statement as a hypothesis or theory, in which case science can look the other way while you rant and rave until you’re blue in the face.)
All of that being said I read an article on Grist in the “Ask Umbra” column (Ask Umbra: Is it bad to leave chargers plugged in?) where I saw both hard numbers and common sense. ”Frankly, I’m of two minds about whether we should all freak out about chargers. Standby power use is responsible for an estimated 1 percent of global CO2 emissions, and every little bit certainly counts. But if you haven’t taken bigger steps like insulating your house or embracing public transportation, fretting over wall warts might not be the best use of your energy.” – Umbrella
It is truly satisfying to see that combination in environmental journalism. I hope this is a trend, and the people (journalists and politicians included) come to their senses about both the need for green tech as well as the true environmental economies, but I’m not holding my breath.
“Carbon nanotubes and graphene have paved the way for the next step in the evolution of carbon materials. Among the novel forms of carbon allotropes is graphyne – a two-dimensional lattice of sp–sp2-hybridized carbon atoms similar to graphene for which recent progress has been made in synthesizing dehydrobenzoannulene precursors that form subunits of graphyne. Here, we characterize the mechanical properties of single-atomiclayer graphyne sheets by full atomistic first-principles-based ReaxFF molecular dynamics. Atomistic modeling is carried out to determine its mechanical properties for both in-plane and bending deformation including material failure, as well as intersheet adhesion. Unlike graphene, the fracture strain and stress of graphyne depends strongly on the direction of the applied strain and the alignment with carbon triple-bond linkages, ranging from 48.2 to 107.5 GPa with ultimate strains of 8.2–13.2%. The intersheet adhesion and out-of-plane bending stiffnesses are comparable to graphene, despite the density of graphyne being only one-half of that of graphene. Unlike graphene, the sparser carbon arrangement in graphyne combined with the directional dependence on the acetylenic groups results in internal stiffening dependent on the direction of applied loading, leading to a nonlinear stress–strain behavior.”
I really like this list, a lot of smart tips on saving money on gas without having to sell your existing car in order to buy a Chevy Volt (although we both know you want to)
I’ve been working at GE Healthcare X-ray tubes now for almost two years now. But when I first came to work here one of the things that I first noticed was how much the individuals derived a deep satisfaction out of their work. At least once a day when talking to people, especially the technicians on the floor, I would hear them say “we’re saving lives.” And at first I thought; “No, we are making x-ray tubes, Doctors then use our equipment to help save lives.” I know it’s pessimistic, but at the time I just didn’t get it. Most of the people who work here derive that joy from their work because they care about making a difference. Yes they all WORK, and care about getting a pay check, but it’s more than that. Don’t believe me? Watch this video that was shot at CT Headquarters, about 25 minutes from where I work.
When my mother was 16, long before I was born, her father died of Lymphoma. In the 1950′s diagnosing cancer was a far cry from the science it is today, and all too often the cancer was only detected once it was already too late. Today I work in a team of engineers who design a product that could have saved my Grandfather’s life. I never met the man, and while I’d be lying to say that I didn’t wish things were different, I am not filled with remorse when I think of what is and what was; only gratitude. Gratitude for all of the men and women who spent there carriers working to improve the field of medicine, diagnostics, and treatment, so that we could be where we are today. I am proud that in my own small way I can help make it so that someone else doesn’t have to lose their grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, brother, sister, spouse or child. The world is far from perfect and we will continue to loose loved ones to cancer and other diseases that in the future will be considered treatable. Which is why we should all do what we can to make a difference in our prospective fields.
When I saw this message from John Dineen earlier today it only confirmed what I already knew about the culture of the company I now work for. Nonetheless it is satisfying to hear how committed GE is to making a difference in patients’ lives. From the highest levels all the way down to the individual workers.
I love numbers and science, their simplicity and absoluteness. In an equation, if it is solvable, then there is a rational explanation for the solution. In many cases there is only one correct answer. All of my favorite science and engineering puzzles are this way. With one elegant indisputable solution. Unfortunately life is not always, or even usually, this way. Possibly why I love hard science (not soft science like psychology or part of biology) so much. It is ordered and logical, once you finally figure it out.
Up until today I thought I like math. I was actually under the impression that I enjoyed math itself. Until I read the above article and realized that the thought of numbers and equations that take up hundreds of thousands of pages, decades, and dozens of Ph.Ds to solve. It gave me a headache just thinking about math that complex. I’m not saying that I couldn’t read Aschbacher’s 1200 page paper and understand most of it. Granted it may take me as long to fully understand it as it took him to write it. But the thought of having a job like his filled me with dread. Which to me was odd, because if I truly LOVED numbers and math as I thought I did, I should relish the thought of diving into a pool of unsolved mathematical mystery and emerging with buried treasure. But I don’t. At least not on that scale.
What I realized is that I love numbers when their solutions result in actionable knowledge. If I use regression or integration to determine when a condition is at it’s best/worst or simply IS, and that knowledge means that this doohickey should be like ‘this’, or made out of ‘that’, or is ‘something’. I’m not saying that their solution doesn’t MEAN something. It means A LOT, and generations from now, their theorem will effect the way things work that the average person doesn’t even know exist despite depending on them. But when that equation was solved they didn’t then run out and MAKE something. It simply was a completed equation.
I LOVE puzzles, but what I really love are solutions and MAKING things. Not simply making them, but making them better than before. I love research, and part of all science is hypothesis and theory. But I could not live in a world of theory, where solutions aren’t actionable outside the world of more theory.
We have all seen many things through the ages be labeled as “Bad for you” or “Bad for the environment”, only later to have ‘the experts’ change there minds. This is most common with food, and usually changes when we invent a new way of analyzing or looking at things, and is most commonly seen in the ‘things we put in our mouth’ category. If you still don’t understand what I’m talking about, then I’ll just hint at Eggs and Cholesterol if your old enough to remember that debate.
But in recent history we have seen perceptions change not due to how we perceive things, but because of changes in technology and how we use (or more importantly RE-use) things. A prime example of this is methane sequestration from land fills to generate energy. Methane is one of the few examples of gasses that is better for the environment after combustion than before. So burning it is actually ‘green’, and so long as they are burning it go ahead and turn some of that into energy so we don’t have to burn coal instead. If you want to know more: http://tinyurl.com/3fobyrz
My newest favorite example of “Bad for you” becoming “Good for you” is a process that converts plastic bags back into usable petroleum. http://bit.ly/qBr2ta
It has been common for a good while to convert plastic bags into other usable items. And at the industrial level people have been converting plastic bags into oil for around half a decade. Not too long, but long enough that someone has finally made that technology efficient and accessible enough for wide spread use, and even consumer access.
While all of this is well and good, and hopefully you’ve learned something by this point in my blog, but I still haven’t made an actual point yet…
YESTERDAY DOE announced $41M in research for carbon sequestration. http://1.usa.gov/n6yRMW
You may be saying “TJ while this is great news for the environment, CO2 is still BAD”. Yes, yes it is. And while petroleum, methane, and CO2 are not at all the same things. We still use compressed CO2 in solid and gas for a variety of things. As it’s easy to create CO2 it is often done as part of the process in which it is used or stored. But what if we didn’t just find a way to clean up all the smokestacks in the US? What if all of these brilliant minds and Millions of dollars were used to not only sequester CO2, but use it?
Carbon is part of every consumer product I can think of. I’m sure we can make this environmental FAIL a WIN. I have a few ideas… but that’s proprietary
So on my lunch break today I was reading “Materials Handbook” Fifth Edition by George S. Brady. Not because I would learn something ‘new’ from a 60+ year old book. But because it is interesting to see what we have learned since then. I find it inspiring to see not only how much we have learned in a man’s lifetime (not mine, yet) but also how much scientists of the past could determine with so few instruments. In addition to that I find the examples of science we have disproved or improved gives insight into what science we currently believe that yet has room for improvement.
As somewhat of a side note, while reading this horribly outdated book vintage masterpiece I was reminded of a professor who would give no credit to any work that used Wikipedia as a resource. He regularly told us that we had to go to the library for the information because not everything is on the internet. And while in my given field of Material Science it’s true (I could name hundreds of subjects that aren’t even a foot note in Wikipedia), that doesn’t mean that user supplied facts are any less true than a book published 20 years ago. And yes most science books currently in use were first composed at least 20 years ago, and although each edition contains updates, the whole of the work stays very much the same in most cases. I would bet that books (whether electronic or print) will always be the best way to present mass amounts of information (200-600+pages), but they are definitely no longer the only source of information. I think that open source information can be just as right or wrong as published information.
What I think the real lesson is that regardless of the source question the facts and more importantly the conclusions. But don’t just ask “Is this correct”. Ask “Why is this correct or incorrect? And how can I prove or disprove their conclusion” Don’t question authority/science/politics/etc. for the sake of not being a lemming. Questions it in order to find the TRUTH.
Several weeks ago the Obama administration called to end the Constellation Space program. The Human Spaceflight Review was organized to review the Constellation program do to some concerns about the Aries I rocket amongst other things. They concluded that the program was underfunded, and the payload capabilities of the Aries I were lacking. Speaking as someone who was working in the space industry at the time I agree that the program would have been substantially better with the added funding, and the Aries I rocket should have been rethought before it reached the development stages it was at.
This was a hard decision for the president, but a choice was made that I didn’t see coming, and I still don’t fully understand. They decided to cut the entire Constellation program indefinitely postponing visiting the moon and mars. They did not cut the budget. They instead gave NASA a small increase in there budget, but gave them NO direction as to what to do with it. They said that they wanted to focus on “technology”. I love tech as much as the next guy, but it is an incredibly vague term.
I can see where the politicians are coming from in a sense. Since I first started working summer internships in aerospace I’ve had the “what’s the point of NASA?” conversation many times. For people who don’t see the grandeur and beauty of space, or understand the accomplishment and pride that not only the US has for having put a living person on the moon, this is a difficult conversation. A lot of people in my generation who didn’t see Neil Armstrong walk on the moon when it happened don’t feel passionately about going back.
So what do you say to someone who doesn’t care about space to justify the space program, because honestly it doesn’t matter to everyone? Technology. Without NASA we wouldn’t have satellites, cell phones, GPS, actual data about global warming, and countless materials that are used to make a lot of the super cool stuff we have today. You could argue that we would have gotten there without NASA, that the military would have pursued the technology, and you would be right. But the military only has there best interests at heart, and they only give up there technology when they are done with it. Meaning that we would be at least a generation behind, if not three. Who knows, instead of being excited about having apps on your phone, you would just now be getting your first camera phone.
So with that idea NASA is asked to develop technology, but without anyone telling them to what end. It would be like asking a teenage boy to build muscle but taking away his weights and not teaching him anything about exercise. Large for profit companies like General Electric, and 3M have been filling technological needs for years. They know how to probe the market for what is needed, design it, and then market it. Large government entities like NASA are not adept for things like that.
For decades NASA has been coming up with mind blowing technology, but it isn’t until someone else comes along and figures out good everday applications and licenses it that we get the amazing tech that we love. If you expect NASA to just come up with cool technology that people will actually be able to use then they are going to have to seriously beef up there marketing department. Because the NASA marketing department’s sole product for the last 50 years has been NASA. And if you check out any of there podcasts, or twitter feeds you’ll see they’re doing an awesome job at that.
But without the challenge, neigh the dream, of human space flight, how do you expect them to come up with anything more awesome than what they already have. The Wright brothers to take there ingenuity and make cars I don’t think it we would be talking about them. Or if you asked Edward Armstrong to work out the bugs of AM radio instead of ditching them to develop FM radio we’d probably still be listening to AM when our CD player doesn’t work.
The point being that NASA directly and indirectly employs many of the smartest minds in our country, and to take away the task at hand without giving them any specific direction will not only cost the country jobs, it will cost us ambition and ingenuity. Two of the things that have made the United States what they are. And without space flight what will inspire the next generation of rocket scientists?
My last post (I know it’s been a long time) was about breaking research on brain image reproduction. After reading recent publications on the subject I am filled with a giddy excitement, and paranoid fear at the same time. While my scientific inner child, who wants nothing but to build world peace by the means of very large shiny tools, dances with joy at the idea of being able to tap into all of the thoughts that his hands and mouth are too clumsy to articulate. My paranoid sci-fi apocalyptic reading inner adult cringes at the thought of someone being able to monitor our most inner thoughts, are safest of safe places could be monitored! I suddenly feel naked in my cubicle knowing that my boss could not only monitor the key strokes of this blog, but also read my thoughts!
whoa whoa, slow down. data overload.
What I am talking about is fMRI. the possibility of being able to construct data collected from the brain in a way that you can actually see what’s going on in there. Neuroscientists at UCLA and Rutgers University have been working on exactly that. Turning a cat scan machine into a mental x-ray. How successful they currently are or are not may determine how sound this technology may prove to be in our lifetime. But any success is an indication that it will be one day possible.
Many of you have read the “tweet with your mind” story. I thought it would be cool tell I saw the head dress you would have to wear. The interesting part to me was that the tech was so accessible that they put it together in a matter of weeks.
How long will it be till I don’t have to type this blog? When I make a mental note, it is actually a pdf note or list that I can go back through later. When the minds of babies can be recorded so we can actually know “what are they thinking?”. When we can download the memories of our loved ones, or not so loved ones and keep them for history. The possibilities are endless. If you think twitter is big, wait until we have linked data w/o a computer interface. Information could be closer than your fingertips.
