It doesn’t have to be said, but I’m going to say it anyway. Those Victorians really knew how to build lovely buildings. Just look at the ceiling in this cafe area of the Natural History Museum!
Winter Solar Farm
Here’s the local solar farm in the winter. It’d be interesting to know the power output of the whole farm. Also, the panels don’t face south, more south-east. Perhaps that’s when the sun is most useful? Or perhaps clouds tend to cover the sky in the afternoon? Not sure. Perhaps an email to the company is needed. Watch this space.
Just found this information:
The 4.9 megawatt solar farm covers 26 acres of the former SCA paper mill site, which closed in 2009 with the loss of 130 jobs.
So that’s 0.19 MW/acre. For comparison the Magnox nuclear reactor Sizewell A in Suffolk created 420MW for a land area of 245 acres. This gives 1.7 MW/acre, nearly ten times the power. It’d be interesting to compare running costs!
Fragile
Makes you realise just how fragile this Earth is.
Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.
Negative Quesitons
This is another of those annoying language things that stems from my rather literal language processing unit. See my previous post about starting letters. I am not far enough into the spectrum to follow instructions or comprehension literally but I do struggle trying to answer negative questions in a true manner. Once again there common usage issues that I believe to be amazingly wrong but most people seem to accept them.
If something is amazing then the following:
Is that an amazing aircraft manoeuvre?
is easy to answer. Yes for agreeing with the statement and no for disagreeing. However the question:
Isn’t that an amazing aircraft manoeuvre?
is remarkably hard to answer. I believe the vernacular is to answer “yes” if I am saying that it is an amazing manoeuvre. But if I answer “yes” then I think I am agreeing with the statement which is
Is that not an amazing manoeuvre?
and that reverses the meaning of my answer. Arrrrggghhh! Similarly other questions can confuse me enough that I answer very differently. So, if I had just seen an amazing manoeuvre then the following would be the conversation:
“wasn’t that an amazing manoeuvre?”
“It was amazing”
This means I have not answered an impossible question and also managed to keep my head from exploding with diverse logic implications.
Other examples are:
“aren’t you going to the cinema?”
“isn’t that band great?”
So, please don’t ask me perfectly normal questions, it just hurts.
Looking in the mirror
Here’s a tip for some of you drivers out there. It stems from my experiences as a motorcyclist and now as a driver, although now I’m not travelling quite as fast. The bike was an 1100cc machine and my car is a diesel estate!
I noticed in the past that whenever I was coming up behind a car on a motorway and that car was indicating to pull out into my lane that the driver would (I assume) check the rear view mirror or door mirror. Now, if the driver looks once and gets a snapshot of the road they would see me in the outside lane. What would be interesting is that the driver would have no idea of how fast I was travelling unless he/she spent a long time staring in the mirror. To get an impression of speed the driver would have to look again in the mirror to see how my position relative to him/her had changed in the time that had passed.
I believe it is for this reason I had cars pull out in front of me causing me to brake many times. It is quite simple that to judge a speed you need two reference times to see position change. Hence drivers need to look in their mirrors twice before pulling out in front of traffic in the next lane. Most drivers are ignorant of this fact of physics given that cars still pull out in front of me and I’m now in a car.
Perhaps drivers don’t care about other road users and I’m in the minority. Gosh, I think I’m better than most.
Flat or heaped? A spoonful of sugar
My dad always asks for two heaped sugars in his coffee. Is it worth it? How does it compare to a level spoon of sugar?
Initial tests:
Standard Teaspoon – mass of granulated sugar (nearest gram)
Level 5g
Heaped 7g
Medicine Spoon – mass of granulated sugar (nearest gram)
Level 6g
Heaped 9g
It looks as though heaping sugar on top of the spoon increases the sugar by a factor of 1.5 (or thereabouts). I now need to get into the science department at work to use a more accurate set of scales.
Is it worth asking for heaped spoonfuls of sugar. Yeah, go for it!
Mathematics – the path to understanding
Science is about observing our world, making predictions and then seeing if we are correct. What a wonderful and beautiful method for understanding our world. Much preferable than relying on an ancient book and a mystical bearded man in the sky.
Mathematics is the key to science. Understanding mathematics gives you the tools to probe scientific models and to make predictions. It’s also how we know what we know and allows us to decide what works. Bit by bit our models of the natural world change and improve and feed on the evidence presented by our research.
Be good at mathematics, or at least be hard working. It can be rote learnt but it’s much better to have the flair and natural ability. This system is rather hard on those who can’t follow the maths, but there are plenty of people willing to popularise science in TV shows and books. There’s just not an excuse for trying, or trying to find out.
I advise my students to listen carefully the moment they decide to take no more mathematics courses. They might be able to hear the sound of closing doors.
James Caballero
Religion, the mother of all conspiracies
This is going to be a big one, not necessarily long just hitting at the basis of belief. Think I need to explain bit by bit and just so you know I don’t think it’s a modern conspiracy like the New World Order or so called 911-Truthers.
God
So firstly let’s face the reality of existence and admit there is no god, none of any faith. It’s quite clear that after reading around the history of religion and the psychology of belief and add in a little evolutionary theory that Mankind needs to have a supernatural agent. A being that can be blamed for things we don’t understand or to explain random events. There is no god, because if it were to exist outside our physical realm and not affect us then we have no need to understand it, but if god were to exist within and affect our realm then it should be detectable. The effect is not detectable.
Creation
It is nice that everyone enjoys a good story and that as social creatures we tell and re-tell stories, often embellishing them messages to get our particular point of view across. I’m happy to have myths on the origins of the Earth and the universe, it’s fun to tell a riveting tale. In reality we have a creation story based on all the observable evidence and it varies quite a lot from camp fire tales of 2000 years ago. Keep your stories but I prefer to follow the evidence.
Religious Texts
For too long Chinese whispers, mistranslations and blatant forgery written in the holy books of the world have been used to suppress and force people into acting as “they should”. Most of the biblical stories have no evidence for their reality and so most are made up or forged using older texts as a basis for modern manipulation. The arcane rules set down by organised religion that have nothing to do with love and compassion astound me. The puppets of god’s so called power should stand forth and announce to the world the truth about the lies they expound and endorse. The leaders of the faithful should admit the problems and forgeries within the texts and develop a more caring, humanist view of the world.
Organised Religion
Any organisation can, at the roots, be about belief and faith in the greater good. Some companies like to do good, some churches like to do good but what is the bigger picture?Companies are there to make money. Churches are there to maintain a healthy flock and in some cases to make money and create a power base. The problem is that all organisations are about power. The churches are no different. Once you get into hierarchy you gain power and it becomes harder and harder to face reality based on evidence. There is plenty of cognitive dissonance in everyday life but probably more in the churches. There is little chance to influence the direction of a big organisation especially when it’s about keeping the flock oppressed.
The Good of the People
Religion seems to be little about doing things for the good of the people and more about keeping the guilt and fear in people so that they never leave the flock. Churches make people feel guilty about their behaviour and where can they go to feel better and get absolution? Their church.
Doctrine
Are we really living in a time when people believe that the way an animal is slaughtered can please or displease a god? That having a foreskin is against god? That being gay and loving another human being is against god? That missing a prayer gets you sent to hell? That not wearing a condom and then dying of AIDS is the great plan? That god is a certain nationality? That intercessory prayer works? That religious people deserve to be heard in moral debates just because they believe in god? That morals can only come from god? That the Earth is 6000 years old? That religion has its place in government? That Jesus existed? That the exodus happened?
Humanism
The way to be good to people and accept the world for what it is, without god.
Look it up and treasure it.
Science
The best tool we have for understanding our world. We make predications based on observations and then see if we are right. Then adjust our predictions and try again. What better way could there be for learning what is true?
Conspiracy
So, religious leaders lie about god, they lie about morals and they lie about the historical evidence. Yet they still maintain they are correct. That is your conspiracy.
Material World 23/06/11
Quentin Cooper discussed health reporting in UK newspapers with Dr William Lee, King’s College London and Roger Highfield, Editor of New Scientist. Material World.
Roger Highfield made the argument that newspapers are for entertainment and that the fact that around 70% of the claims made in their health articles were not backed up with evidence was justifiable. His reasoning was that journalists often have short deadlines and that the readership was able to tell the difference between what was true and what was not. He is quite wrong.
Newspapers are expected to tell the truth and to have evidence to back up what they report. The fact that people fail to trust newspaper science reporting is mostly due to newspapers reporting either poor research or researching poorly. The general public have lost faith in the trust of reporters to report what they know.
If the tabloids are generally read by the not so educated then those newspapers have a lot of responsibility for their readers’ health. People aren’t clever enough to judge the science and evidence for claims made in papers. Half of the population has below average intelligence and probably doesn’t understand the sceptical process of critical thinking about scientific claims. I await the time that a tabloid is sued for causing the death of someone who took their broccoli health plan seriously. The readers of the Daily Mail deserve whatever they get given the excrement they read.
The responsibility for the understanding of health articles relies with those writing the articles, not those who read them.
How to eat an apple
Apart from using a knife (or not) and cutting up an apple I can think of predominantly two ways of eating an apple. This does matter because one way is correct and the other is not so correct.
Circumferential or the Segment method?
A circumferential eater will take a bite, rotate the sphere using the core as the axis and take another bite. This will result in a curve of apple exposed around the great circle of the apple. Then another line of bite is taken from each end (assuming that the eater has a big enough mouth to bite to the core)
A segmental eater takes bites out of the apple from stalk to opposite pole. This results in a segment being eaten and then the apple being rotated to start the process again.
The problem is exposure of the flesh of the apple to the air to turn brown and this needs to be minimised. In the segment method the area exposed for significant time is constant. For the circumferential method the area exposed increases with time.
Which leads to:
The analysis shows that if your bite radius is greater than 0.140 of the radius of the apple then you should eat in segments. Apart from small mammals the bite radius is going to be more than 14% of the apple radius, unless there is a huge apple variety waiting to be discovered.
This post was necessary because every time I eat an apple my wife tells me I am eating it the wrong way.
Sky+HD sound
You would think it’s simple.
Sky box has HDMI output. My amplifier has HDMI in with full HD sound and 7.1 decoding. So why does Sky box only output stereo sound through the HDMI cable? I have optical cable connected which does work fine ( DD 5.1 only). The installation tech told me the HDMI does do 5.1, he was wrong although it’s hard to find a definitive answer.
After about an hour of googling I finally found what I hope is the correct answer.
http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-HD-Picture-Sound/Sky-HD-5-1-via-HDMI/m-p/2183#M300
Why make a piece of kit that doesn’t do what it can? Is it that you can’t send HD sound over satellite signal? Perhaps they only have space for compressed Dolby digital rather than the more pure 48khz CD or better standard.
Sky need a tech page for people who know their stuff to help make decent equipment decisions.
Oh well.