Wasp

Books, we know we should read them it seems like the done thing for those of intelligence. But do to this representation it some times feels like a chore to pick up a big book sit down and try and work your way through it.

However, I come to you with a suggestion, a small book. More specifically Wasp by Eric F. Russell a mere fourteen chapters and only 175 pages yet so engrossing most will not put it down until they are finished.

Wasp is a book with the plot based on the idea that a small wasp can irritate a driver of a car to the point of crashing and killing all the passengers. The idea a small almost insignificant, in size, being can cause the death of four giants and a huge machine. This then links with the timing of the piece set years into the future where a one James Mowry is sent to be a “Wasp” on an alien planet. Mowry’s work is used to help earth fight a war against an alien race far more numerous than humanity.

This compelling book to me is similar in many ways to George Orwell’s Classic 1984 with its way of gripping writing telling the tale of literally one man against the world.

For me whether you are interested in sci-fi or not this is still a must for anyone and everyone.

(Exepose 18/05/07)

Perception of Science

Cross posted from University of Bristol Science Faculty Blog:

I often wonder what the world thinks of science and scientists as through out my life I am surround by those within the bubble, as it were. To try and unravel what maybe thought of us by the outside world you have to look at what hits the main stream news and popular culture.

Looking the popular view you get tv shows and definitely Prof Brian Cox with his previously life as a pop star with D:Ream. I see things such as the big bang theory being created showing and increase the scientists stereotype, that is they are socially awkward brainy people that are funny to laugh at as they fail to fit in with the world around us. Brain Cox on the other hand has come to previalance because he is the exact opposite, like Richard Feynman he is easy to talk to and has the ability to explain complex ideas with ease for everyone to understand. Now I am not saying we are all like Brian but think of it this way. We wouldn't have science if scientists where unable to communicate.

This then leads me to labels. Prof Cox labels himself a geek, and you could say that those comic book loving social outcasts in big bang are nerds. But really what is the difference. Can you be a nerd, without being geek or vice versa. Interestingly a team that put together a 'Geek Calender' this year, containing snaps of people like Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre, have at the head of their website 'nerds on the march'. This would suggest that a 'nerd' driven movement has created a calender about geeks.

Admittedly these points lead me further from finding the difference between nerd and geek, but more importantly I see the use of the words changing. No longer are people negatively labelled using these words but more using it as an empowerment.

Consider Phlebas

Consider Phlebas, to me an unpronounceable name for Ian Banks first attempt at science fiction and if you ask me it was a success.

As with most si-fi this book starts out with being told there is a war between the humans and an alien race. However for this story there is a novel twist the humans are portrayed as they bad guys.

The protagonist is a humanoid working as a special agent for the three legged, practically immortal giant aliens known as the Idirans. He is descended from a species of human created solely to be spies so have the ability to change their appearance at will as well as having valuable home grown weapons like venomous spit. Horza as he is known is a mercenary for the Idirans because the way he sees it is that they are on the side of life. Compared to the Culture, the human society, who have created A.I. called minds to run most of the external affairs leaving them to lives of luxury and pleasure seeking.

In my opinion this is a good long read but at times Banks seams to be trying to hard, he tend to flick from one dangerous adventure to the next deadly situation without stopping to recover your breath. It appeared to me at least that he seemed scared of the idea you the reader may get board. Still this leaves for a fast paced interesting read that never lets up. This is handy if you are scared of big books as it is a good 500+ pager yet still what is better than being sat out in the sun with a good book?

(Exepose 18/05/07)

Radiation: Fact or Science Fiction

Cross Posted from 'Bristol University Science Faculty Blog':

Radiation, radioactive and nuclear are all words that of late have been attributed negative connotations. Not just just thanks to obfuscation of what actually happened to the Reactor in Fukushima, which was down to poor info-structure around the power plant not the fault of the reactor design, all the fail safes worked except the human one of finding a new power source within 8 hours. Yet I think one of the main perception problems with 'radiation' can be phrased as the old adage 'we fear what we do not understand'.

Still I lay my blame with those of the media and science fiction scaremongering. Now this may sound like it is starting to turn into a rant, but if I too just state feelings over facts we will not get anywhere. Thus, from now on I shall leave the opinions you and just present the facts.

650,000 deaths a year, across the globe, are attributed to normal levels of background radiation. The lowest dose, in a short period of time, to cause physical effects like radiation sickness; 25 Rem = 0.25 sieverts. The average a normal person, like you, will in counter in one day is 1x10^-3Rem = 1x10^-5 sieverts. Tiny, tiny amounts. Interestingly, many places in Cornwall have a higher level of radiation than is allowed in UK schools. Now you maybe thinking of cancelling that trip to Cornwall, but I urge you not to be perturbed the point I am trying to make is that even those who are writing the safety guidelines are overly scared. I am not suggesting you take a blasé approach to radioactive materials, just know the facts. The last thing I am going to leave you with is from a good graphical representation of radiation levels, my favourite bit to point out is that you get more from a banana than from living within 50 miles from a nuclear power plant for a year.

So now to you, go and make your own mind up about 'Radiation: Fact or Science Fiction'. Any response to which is greatly encouraged.

A Brief History of Time

The best book in the last 20 years? Should it be the most influential? If so then for me it has to be Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time.

That last statement may have confused you however I say it as it was one of the driving factors in converting me from a mathematician to a physics.

This book just falls into the 20 year or under category as like me it was first published in 1988. It I think is well known as being one of those books people are scared of due to a fear of not understanding. However if you read it and only understand half you are still half way there & you will get a lot out of it. It stretches your imagination and perception just like any good novel yet you can stand back from it and say this is true. (or is it?). Either way instead of transporting you to a different weird and wonderful world through an author’s eyes it opens your eyes to the beauty that surrounds us. If like some you are not mathematically minded then there is still no need to worry. You can still take in the basic concept so giving not only a sense of wonder but also I like to think a sense of understanding as to why.

So I say to you go out there next time your wanting a book. Pick it up cheap, read, enjoy and hopefully understand. And if not you can still turn heads by saying I have read Hawking’s book.

(Exepose 22/10/07)

Proud of yourself?

I found great joy in writing my last note and it has led me to look through a plethora of reading materials in search of more. I am starting to notice the beauty of language available; the subtleties of certain turns of phrase, once lost on me, are now bringing me newfound joy.
The word for today is “Hubris”. The description of which is akin to arrogance. It describes a state of overconfidence in one’s self, put another way, an overindulged sense of pride.
Thus, you could use the word to pitch back a contemporary who is excessively pleased with themselves. However, this could be somewhat of a double-edged sword if the retort to your saying 'You are being overtly hubris' were to be 'what is hubris?' because undoubtedly in this scenario it would draw a sly smile on your part. With this knowledge of you bettering your contemporary, unwillingly your ego would grow and subsequently cause a possible self-confidence bordering on hubris itself. An ironic turn of events, I am sure you could appreciate.
Yours ingenuously,
Ed

Nano-polycrysatlline materials, what? Why?

Nano-polycrystalline materials: what are they, why are they useful and most importantly, why should we care? For one, they provide a fascinating insight into current science, which will be discussed later. First, “what”, as how can you understand the usefulness of something until you know what it is? For instance, how useful is a latundan? Well unless you are hungry, not very, as it is a Filipino banana. A quick insight: nano-polycrystalline iron-nickel alloy is approximately 400 percent stronger than conventional iron-nickel alloy. Starting to see the potential?

Looking at the etymology of the word reveals what it means. “Nano” refers to the scale (1x10^-9), “poly” means many and “crystalline” means a crystal structure. Thus, we have a material made up of many nano-sized crystals, in this case anything with crystals less than 100 nanometres in diameter. To give a sense of the scale, 1 Billiard (a thousand billions) of them fit in a pint glass. To explain what a crystal is, think back to what is first taught about metals in school, which is, that all the atoms are tightly packed in every direction, for instance imagine packing snooker balls into a cube. This creates a very ordered set of atoms referred to as a “crystal lattice”. In these nano-polycrystalline materials we have nano-sized pockets of this order and the bits around them that hold them together are random. In terms of an analogy, envisage a bowl of sugar cubes that have gotten wet. What is meant by this is there are lots of lumps of sugar that have just started to dissolve around the edges making them all stick together, so each cube is still visible but now they make up one whole.

So why? These materials are a representation of nature, with a few tweaks by human hand, producing remarkable results. Their strength makes them harder than steel; it shows that the actual structure of a material, at an atom by atom scale, is just as important as the composition. So, all manner of things can be created from nano-polycrystalline materials using their beneficial properties to produce something above and beyond that of normal materials.

Now, to the point of what this means for science. The creation of these materials highlights the movement of material development, from the old fashioned system of “let’s add more stuff and see if it makes the material better or worse”, to the creation of materials by selecting the favoured attributes through knowledge of in-depth truths about the physics and chemistry used.

This is a crucial turning point, not just for materials but as a trend in science in general. The move from bumbling explorer, “what happens if I do this?” to the scientist who deliberately decides to do things in order to create a preferred outcome, therefore showing a maturity of thought. Think of it like the stage where humanity instead of finding caves to live in, are building their own ‘caves’ in more preferable spots. So, creating houses as shelter where they want rather than just finding it. Admittedly one cannot come until after the other, yet it is an important step to take.

There are still drawbacks from doing science this way; first to jump to mind unfortunately is that of faked results. There have already been many high profile cases, such as the ‘human cloning’ by South Korean Hwang. Showing when you go looking for something, there is a strong urge to ‘find’ it even if the evidence is to the contrary. However, this is not a question of scientific method more of the ethics and decency of the scientist. Another negative view could be that we will not create anything new, with the thought that we are only doing things we know, yet nano-polycrystalline materials are proof against that. These materials were created due to an observation that materials with smaller crystals are harder than those with big crystals. Further investigation created ever smaller grains leading us to nano-polycrystalline, a previously unknown structure. This is an example of scientists taking previous results as sign posts to find new and better things. Unfortunately in this case we cannot do this forever as if you continue to attempt to create even smaller crystals you end up with a material that has no structure, so is hard but incredibly brittle like glass.

So, what impact does this have on life? Well none, yet. This is one of those areas of research that never makes the headlines, just makes the future. You will, probably, never notice the introduction of nano-polycrystalline materials into the world around you. However, more importantly they throw the change in scientific thinking into stark contrast, no longer are we stumbling along reaping the benefit of accident but now making tools to build our own future.

(A piece written for telegraph writing competition 2011)