Are you puzzled by the bicycle?

No, neither am I. But apparently scientists have been perplexed by this mysterious machine for a century and a half, according to news just released from the Technical University of Delft, Netherlands.

“How on earth is it possible that a moving bicycle can, all by itself, be so stable? Researchers at TU Delft, with colleagues from Cornell University and the University of Nottingham, UK, believe they have now found the ultimate model of the bicycle…” begins the gushing press release.

According to lead researcher Arend Schwab: “Bicycle manufacturers have never been able to say precisely how a bicycle works… they have always had to refine their designs purely through experimentation…“. Well, excuse me for being a smarty-pants, but this is patently absurd. The bicycle works like this: the rider sits on the saddle, holding the handlebars lightly but firmly, places a foot on each pedal, and uses these to transfer muscle power, through the chain and sprockets, to the rear wheel. The resulting forward motion generates a gyroscopic effect in the wheels which stabilises the assembly and stops the whole thing falling over.

Blimey. Give me a PhD.

The serious point the Dutch are trying to make, which may have been slightly lost in translation, is that bicycle manufacturers have never had a good computer model to simulate the characteristics of a bicycle based on its configuration. Even this I find hard to swallow. Aircraft manufacturers are pretty confident that a given design will fly, and how it will handle, long before the first metal is bashed. Cars are similarly created in-silico and few surprises are found when production starts. The configuration variables in a bicycle are limited: wheelbase, wheel diameter, mass distribution, rake and trail of the fork, and (in the absence of suspension) that’s about it. I’m fairly confident that these are all well understood by the engineering fraternity.

But I think I can see where the Dutch have gone wrong. In one of the photographs accompanying the story, reproduced below, a researcher is in hot pursuit of a runaway bike. This, I can reveal, is a mistake: you’re supposed to get on the thing first.

First, catch your bicycle…

Posted in physics, research | 3 Comments »

When Bluefoot meets tongue and mouth disease

Agriculture has become a topic of greater and greater relevance to the laboratory sector recently, especially here in the UK. The summer has been marked by the shocking news that foot and mouth disease has once again been detected among the cattle population, and that a laboratory conducting government research was the source of the outbreak. Just who was responsible has become the subject of intense scrutiny, but clearly a major breach of biosafety protocols has occurred.

When a laboratory, set up as part of the efforts to fight the disease, has instead been the source of an outbreak (which at last count had spread to about a dozen locations), the result is similar to the so-called friendly-fire incidents which seem so prevalent in modern warfare. Talk about shooting ourselves in the foot!

At least the lab sector seems not to be implicated in the latest virus to hit Britain’s farms. Bluetongue has recently been identified for the first time, and already jokes are circulating about the newly-discovered dangers of cellular telephone headsets. Bluetongue is spread by midges - small mosquitos - and thankfully the weather has become autumnal just as the outbreak occurred. A few good frosts this week should put paid to the beasts, and give a winter respite for the beleagured farming sector.
This comment was originally published in the Laboratorytalk Newsletter

Posted in Uncategorized, environment, food, health | No Comments »

Time to embrace flat-Earthism

The much-maligned and misunderstood Flat Earth movement is being subjected to multiple internet thrashings at the moment, after some minor television hairdo in the USA confessed that she didn’t actually know if the world was flat or not. Instantly, bulletin boards and the blogosphere lit up with righteous condemnation by people who knew better and were really (really) angry that such a heresy could be given airtime.

What strikes me as interesting about this is the almost-religious fervour generated by the round-Earth proponents, while simultaneously linking flat-Earth thinking with religious fundamentalism. That, and their almost complete absence of any sense of humour or irony.

So I want to stand up for Flat Earthism. I believe in science, not dogma, and it seems to me that this is what Flat Earth thinking is all about. To be a Flat Earther, in my understanding, is to decline to accept any hypothesis of any kind without first subjecting it to basic scrutiny - even if that hypothesis is that the world is (roughly) spherical. Flat Earthers are not, contrary to popular belief, head-in-the-sand refuseniks who cannot conceive of the third dimension - rather they are the exact opposite: they are the ultimate sceptics.

It works like this: way back at the dawn of consciousness, the flatness of the Earth was never questioned. It was simply understood, until the alternative and radical theory of ball-shapedness came along. It is a pity that we don’t know who first came up with this silly idea, or how they did it, because it really marks the very beginnings of the scientific process. Conjecture leads to theory, tested by experiment (such as measuring shadows and angles), to provide what we call (in our fundamentalist way) ‘proof’.

When a new theory fits the observed phenomena better than an old theory, generally speaking, it then becomes the accepted model. Sometimes this can take a while, as was the case with (for example) the heliocentric solar system or the dangers of cigarette smoke. Often, this new model is then overthrown when a later and more sophisticated theory offers slightly more, or slightly better, answers.

This is where the fallacy of the ‘proof’ becomes evident. How many scientific theories have been ‘proven’, only to be later overturned when new facts come to light? The answer must be countless. In science, proof is not an absolute - it merely means that we haven’t yet been able to disprove it. Scientific fact is nothing more than this year’s best guess.

A Flat Earth supporter, then, could argue that we are in reality no further ahead than we were millennia ago. Our current models are the result of inspired thinking and rigorous analysis by the greatest of minds over countless lifetimes, but they do not by any means represent the end of the journey. Indeed, science for a Flat Earther is all about the journey, because there is not and can not be a destination. This strikes me as a fairly sensible position.

Phew. Glad to get that off my chest. Now for an alternative view on Flat Earth thinking (and some wonderfully comic explanations of simple phenomena), check out the FAQs section of the Flat Earth Society website.
Just - please - don’t take it too seriously. Nobody really thinks this is how the universe works.

Posted in education, popular science | 2 Comments »

Calling all space cadets

Your secret plans for faster-than-light travel are finally going to be taken seriously. The British Interplanetary Society has issued a call for papers for its forthcoming conference, ‘Warp drive faster than light: breaking the interstellar distance barrier’, to be held in November. The BIS might sound like some group of indolent students who got together on Facebook, but is in fact a longstanding organisation (founded 1933) with substantial offices in London. It is, indeed, “the world’s longest-established organisation devoted solely to supporting and promoting the exploration of space and astronautics“.

It says in its promotional material for the conference: “In 1994 Miguel Alcubierre used Einstein’s theory of gravity to design a metric that resembled a bipolar distortion otherwise known as a spherical warp bubble in spacetime. This suggested the possibility of effectively enabling a vehicle to move across enormous stellar distances in a short transit time, allowing the warp bubble interior as well as a vehicle located within to be moved through spacetime faster than the speed of light with respect to the distant universe“.

Now I have to say that my knowledge of relativity is limited to the first couple of dozen pages of Stephen Hawking’s best-seller A Brief History of Time, and contaminated by too many poorly-scripted sci-fi movies, but I can’t help observing that the basis of the conference runs at odds with the central tenet of Einstein physics. I always understood that the speed of light, c, is an absolute, and any warp effect was aimed at reducing the distance travelled rather than increasing the velocity. In what seems like a direct quote from an episode of Star Trek, I learn instead that “within the warp field the speed of light limit has been raised so that locally the vehicle does not violate special relativity“.

The conference programme includes consideration of: The Current Status of the Warp Drive Proposal, Quantum Field Constraints, Photon Propagation through the Warp Field, and Alternative Faster than Light Drives. These may be based upon alternative versions of Einstein’s gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory or Yilmaz theory, or based upon alternative suggestions for interstellar travel such as the Krasnikov tube and wormholes. Those with something to add should act quickly: deadline for abstracts is next week (28 September 2007).

And if this seems like just so much hokum, the BIS responds by pointing out that black holes are nowadays an accepted phenomenon and part of the conventional scientific view of the universe, yet just a few decades ago they too were the subject of ridicule. Beam me up, Scotty!
This comment was originally published in the Laboratorytalk Newsletter

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

It’s not a logo, it’s a brand initiative and visual identity

Before I wade into this one, I’d like to make it clear that I have absolutely no beef with Millipore. As far as I’m concerned the company has an excellent reputation, and each of its representatives that I have met have been charming and helpful.

But I’m afraid it has fallen into the common marketing trap of over-justifying its new logo, above, announced today. It’s a nice enough graphical device, emphasising the initial letter M instead of the whole name. I even quite like the colour.

But I’m less convinced by the official rationale for the change. According to today’s announcement, this re-branding “underscores expanded capabilities and partnerships“, and “affirms Millipore’s transformation from high performance filtration systems provider to leading life science corporation, focused on delivering the pioneering technologies and deep expertise necessary for customers to reach their research and scientific goals“.

Eh?

What we have is a big blue two-tone M, with the company name written sideways. All organisations like to revamp their image from time to time, and yet they often appear to be embarrassed about it - hence the descent in corporate mumbo-jumbo and ‘business bingo’ terminology.

What I’d like to see is a press release announcing a new corporate identity that said something like: “We’ve had our old logo for a decade, and wanted something new. Here it is - nice, isn’t it?”.

The old logo, above, apparently did not convey the range of the company’s activities

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Politicians, not scientists, need the universal ethical code

This morning at the British Association’s annual science festival in York, the UK government’s chief scientist David King set out his ideas for a ‘universal ethics code’ that he thinks all scientists should follow. His seven-point plan, broadly similar to the ancient Hippocratic Oath that was subscribed to by medieaval medics, includes clauses to stamp out corruption, minimise or eliminate use of animals, and consider the environmental impact of research.

King’s seven-point ethics code for scientists:

1. Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date
2. Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest
3. Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists
4. Ensure that research is justified and lawful
5. Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment
6. Discuss issues science raises for society
7. Do not mislead; present evidence honestly

This is a silly idea that has more to do with generating publicity for King, the incoming president of the BA, than any attempt to improve science. It is redundant, in that any chartered scientist already subscribes to a code of practice through their professional bodies, and will do actual harm to science when it is seized upon by the Luddite factions of society: “See? these scientists have gone mad - even their own chief says so”.

I have a better idea: instead of this, let’s have a seven-point universal ethical code for politicians. Here’s my first draft:

1. Put the wellbeing of the planet above the nation, and the nation above the party.
2. Money raised through taxes is not yours. It still belongs to the people.
3. Promises made in political campaigns still count as promises. If you break them, you’re a liar.
4. Laws apply to everybody, including lawmakers.
5. People of other nations are free to believe different things than us.
6. Going to war is a bad way to create peace.
7. None of the advice you receive is impartial. Everybody wants something from you.

With appropriate sanctions for transgressions (unemployment or incarceration), this code would do far more to make the world a better place than David King’s seven points for scientists.

Posted in popular science | 1 Comment »

When a picture is worth a thousand platitudes

I’ve been thinking about science in a visual sense this week, prompted by a couple of collections of imagery of the very (very) largest and very (really) smallest objects that we can perceive. Starting with the very small, this week the International Scanning Probe Microscope Image Contest (SPMage07) announced its top five winning images, selected from around 300 entries.

Top prize and an award of euro5000 goes to Andreas Fuhrer of ETH Zurich for a pleasingly symmetrical image of a four-terminal quantum ring structure. Also notable are an image of the surface of human red blood cells after treatment with antibiotic peptide, and of thymine integrated circuits grown on silver terminated silicon. Pictures of the nano world always have the power to captivate, and the organisers of the competition promise that a more complete gallery will be available for online viewing “in the following weeks”. In the meantime, the top five can be viewed here.

It is worth noting at this point that Laboratorytalk carried the story of a new record for scanning electron microscopy resolution this week, from FEI. See the full story on this 0.5angstrom (0.05nanometre) breakthrough.

At the other end of the scale competely, I have been mesmerised by the online collection of images from the Hubble space telescope. Ranging from planets and moons within our solar system to nebulae and galaxies far far away, the collection will keep you in computer wallpaper for years to come.

Start here, but be prepared to sacrifice an hour or two.

While enjoying these vistas, you might take a moment to consider the semi-serious quest for a new slogan for the US space agency Nasa, as suggested by Wired magazine. Among my favourites so far are ‘Nasa: Actually this *is* rocket science’, ‘See the Moon? Yeah, we hit that’, and ‘All your space are belong to U.S.’

This comment was originally published in the Laboratorytalk Newsletter

Posted in Laboratorytalk, Nasa, physics | 2 Comments »

This is very serious!

I’m slightly uneasy about highlighting mistakes in a press release sent for possible publication on Laboratorytalk, for a couple of reasons. First, I don’t want the victim to think badly of me, and second, if I highlighted every error in every press release I received then, well, I’d be here all day and this blog would be rather long and tedious to read.

But when the errors are so glaring, it is hard to resist. And so I won’t (resist, that is). Here it begins, unedited:

Touching 418 Billion Lives, Hepatitis Still Presents Significant Threat to Global Health

New York, September 6, 2007—Globally, approximately 418 billion people are currently infected with hepatitis, and the unrecognized importance, danger, and costs of hepatitis in the 21st century cannot be understated or underestimated, according to Global Hepatitis Strategies, a new report by Kalorama Information.

To the company’s credit, a retraction and correction was sent out the same day as the original release. I have to ask, though, how this slipped through in the first place? Checking the latest estimates of world population gives a number of about 6.7 billion. Kalorama’s figure for the number of people infected with hepatitis is therefore about 62 times the entire world population.

The answer is that it is probably a simple case of number-blindness (the correct figure is 418 million). But it doesn’t give me faith in the rest of the statistics in the report, which attempts to define the world market for diagnostic products.

If we look past the numbers we see the interesting statement that “costs… cannot be understated or underestimated“. Just for the record, the operative words there are 180 degrees off-mark. If something cannot be understated, everything you say about it is an exaggeration. If it cannot be underestimated, every estimate you make is too high. This, I guess, is not the point the company was trying to make.

When, as in this case, the product being sold is a market analysis, any error or indication of innumeracy is deadly. If it makes Kalorama feel any better, it is not alone. I have for some years maintained a private file marked ‘Bad PR’, which is positively bulging with examples. One day it might make an interesting chapter in a book…

Posted in education | 1 Comment »

When saving the planet becomes a real turn-off

I have to applaud the BBC for its brave decision this week to cancel the ill-conceived Planet Relief programme scheduled for January next year. Modelled on the biannual Comic Relief, but with a Serious Ecological Message(tm) instead of silly red noses, this programme was centred around an apparently self-defeating desire to encourage consumers to switch off their appliances. The entire nation would, supposedly, enter a voluntary blackout for a couple of minutes when some third-rate television personality said so.

I’m sure we all wondered how we would know when to switch everything back on again, if we included the television among those appliances.

The real reason for the abandonment of the programme came when the Beeb sought expert advice on the concept. It went to the National Grid, the electricity distributor, which by all accounts was unequivocal in its view: it was A Bad Idea which would probably create more carbon emissions than it would save. This is because power stations cannot just be turned on and off at will, and a sudden trough in demand would create hiccoughs in the supply lines that would play havoc with the generators.

My friend and colleague Chris Rand raised a similar issue in his Engineeringtalk newsletter earlier this year, stimulating a thoughtful and knowledgeable response from one of his readers. This largely agrees with the issues identified by the BBC, but in both cases I think they have overlooked the human factor.

It seems certain to me that, if the Planet Relief thing went ahead (and especially in January), there would be a surge in power demand, not a trough, at the time of the switch-off. This is because 25 million homes suddenly plunged into darkness on a cold winter night would equate, instantly, to 25 million kettles being put on to boil. Nothing like a nice cup of tea to provide comfort while we save the planet.

Posted in campaigns, education, environment | No Comments »

When a scientific inclination is more than skin-deep

Sometimes, on my daily commute through the back streets of Internetland, I stumble across something so unexpected and yet so vital that I just have to tell anybody who will listen it. Today, those of your who share my interest in the slightly bizarre things people do to express their science are in for a real treat.

The tattoo has recently become an almost indispensible fashion accessory for people of a certain age (ie, younger than me), simultaneously conferring their trendiness and dangerousness. These days, though, daggers through hearts or ships’ anchors are well out of fashion, and a tattoo can express whatever side of a wearer’s personality they want. Even their scientific bent.

A chap called Carl Zimmer, who writes on science for the New York Times among others, recently raised the issue of science-inspired tattoos on his blog, The Loom. What followed seems to have surprised him, as it does me: dozens of readers wrote in with pictures of just that. It might seem that science tattoos are everywhere, but in truth they seem mainly confined to the graduate halls of a few US universities. Nevertheless, the resulting portrait gallery is certainly an eye-opener and well worth a look.

Among the popular motifs are dinosaurs, both fleshed and skeletal, spirals of DNA in various configurations, the symbol pi, and various molecular diagrams (notably diazepam and capsaicin, the chilli molecule - both of which tell us a certain amount about their wearers). Einstein literally rubs shoulders with Mobius and Darwin. At the more ambitious end of the scale, efforts range from a reproduction of the famous Voyager mission plaque to a rendition of the complete solar system across an ever-expanding stomach and a complete periodic table - strategically tattooed onto a forearm (which must raise issues in the examination hall).

I am simultaneously amazed and delighted by the scale and variety of the tattoos, even if I suspect that one or two of them are merely applied with a felt pen. And I can’t help listening to the dangerous side of my personality. But what should I get? So far I have ventured no further than an airbrushed dragon, assured by the artist that it was temporary. This was four weeks ago, and it’s still there.

This comment was originally published in the Laboratorytalk Newsletter

Posted in popular science | 1 Comment »