Category Archives: Engineering

Musical Color and the Well Tempered Scale

5 Replies

by R. E. Buxbaum, (the author of all these posts)

I first heard J. S. Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier some 35 years ago and was struck by the different colors of the different scales. Some were dark and scary, others were light and enjoyable. All of them worked, but each was distinct, though I could not figure out why. That Bach was able to write in all the keys without retuning was a key innovation of his. In his day, people tuned in fifths, a process that created gaps (called wolf) that prevented useful composition in affected keys.

We don’t know exactly how Bach tuned his instruments as he had no scientific way to describe it; we can guess that it was more uniform than the temper produced by tuning in fifths, but it probably was not quite equally spaced. Nowadays electronic keyboards are tuned to 12 equally spaced frequencies per octave through the use of frequency counters.  Starting with the A below “middle C”, A4, tuned at 440 cycles/second (the note symphonies tune to), each note is programmed to vibrate at a wavelength that is lower or higher than one next to it by a factor of the twelfth root of two, 12√2= 1.05946. After 12 multiples of this size, the wavelength has doubled or halved and there is an octave. This is called equal tempering.

Currently, many non-electric instruments are also tuned this way.  Equally tempering avoids all wolf, but makes each note equally ill-tempered. Any key can be transposed to another, but there are no pure harmonies because 12√2 is an irrational number (see joke). There is also no color or feel to any given key except that which has carried over historically in the listeners’ memory. It’s sad.

I’m going to speculate that J.S. Bach found/ favored a way to tune instruments where all of the keys were usable, and OK sounding, but where some harmonies are more perfect than others. Necessarily this means that some harmonies will be less-perfect. There should be no wolf gaps that would sound so bad that Bach could not compose and transpose in every key, but since there is a difference, each key will retain a distinct color that JS Bach explored in his work — or so I’ll assume.

Pythagoras found that notes sound best together when the vibrating lengths are kept in a ratio of small numbers. Consider the tuning note, A4, the A below middle C; this note vibrates a column of air .784 meters long, about 2.5 feet or half the length of an oboe. The octave notes for A4 are called A3 and A5. They vibrate columns of air 2x as long and 1/2 as long as the original. They’re called octaves because they’re eight white keys away from A4. Keyboards add 4 black notes per octave so octaves are always 12 notes away. Keyboards are generally tuned so octaves are always 12 keys away. Based on Pythagoras, a reasonable presumption is that J.S Bach tuned every non-octave note so that it vibrates an air column similar to the equal tuning ratio, 12√2 = 1.05946, but whose wavelength was adjusted, in some cases to make ratios of small, whole numbers with the wavelength for A4.

Aside from octaves, the most pleasant harmonies are with notes whose wavelength is 3/2 as long as the original, or 2/3 as long. The best harmonies with A4 (0.784 m) will be with notes with wavelengths (3/2)*0.784 m long, or (2/3)*0.784m long. The first of these is called D3 and the other is E4. A4 combines with D3 to make a chord called D-major, the so-called “the key of glory.” The Hallelujah chorus, Beethoven’s 9th (Ode to Joy), and Mahler’s Titan are in this key. Scriabin believed that D-major had a unique color, gold, suggesting that the pure ratios were retained.

A combines with E (plus a black note C#) to make a chord called A major. Songs in this key sound (to my ear) robust, cheerful and somewhat pompous; Here, in A-major is: Dancing Queen by ABBA, Lady Madonna by the Beatles; Prelude and Fugue in A major by JS Bach. Scriabin believed that A-major was green.

A4 also combines with E and a new white note, C3, to make a chord called A minor. Since E4 and E3 vibrate at 2/3 and 4/3 the wavelength of A4 respectively, I’ll speculate that Bach tuned C3 to 5/3 the length of A4; 5/3*.0784m =1.307m long. Tuned his way, the ratio of wavelengths in the A minor chord are 3:4:5. Songs in A minor tend to be edgy and sort-of sad: Stairway to heaven, Für Elise, “Songs in A Minor sung by Alicia Keys, and PDQ Bach’s Fugue in A minor. I’m going to speculate the Bach tuned this to 1.312 m (or thereabouts), roughly half-way between the wavelength for a pure ratio and that of equal temper.

The notes D3 and E3 will not sound particularly good together. In both pure ratios and equal tempers their wavelengths are in a ratio of 3/2 to 4/3, that is a ratio of 9 to 8. This can be a tensional transition, but it does not provide a satisfying resolution to my, western ears.

Now for the other white notes. The next white key over from A4 is G3, two half-tones longer that for A4. For equal tuning, we’d expect this note to vibrate a column of air 1.059462 = 1.1225 times longer than A4. The most similar ratio of small whole numbers is 9/8 = 1.1250, and we’d already generated one before between D and E. As a result, we may expect that Bach tuned G3 to a wavelength 9/8*0.784m = .88 meters.

For equal tuning, the next white note, F3, will vibrate an air column 1.059464 = 1.259 times as long as the A4 column. Tuned this way, the wavelength for F3 is 1.259*.784 = .988m. Alternately, since 1.259 is similar to 5/4 = 1.25, it is reasonable to tune F3 as (5/4)*.784 = .980m. I’ll speculate that he split the difference: .984m. F, A, and C combine to make a good harmony called the F major chord. The most popular pieces in F major sound woozy and not-quite settled in my opinion, perhaps because of the oddness of the F tuning. See, e.g. the Jeopardy theme song, “My Sweet Lord,” Come together (Beetles), Beethoven’s Pastoral symphony (Movement 1, “Awakening of cheerful feelings upon arrival in the country”). Scriabin saw F-major as bright blue.

We’ve only one more white note to go in this octave: B4, the other tension note to A4. Since the wavelengths for G3 was 9/8 as long as for A4, we can expect the wavelength for B4 will be 8/9 as long. This will be dissonant to A4, but it will go well with E3 and E4 as these were 2/3 and 4/3 of A4 respectively. Tuned this way, B4 vibrates a column 1.40 m. When B, in any octave, is combined with E it’s called an E chord (E major or E minor); it’s typically combined with a black key, G-sharp (G#). The notes B, E vibrate at a ratio of 4 to 3. J.S. Bach called the G#, “H” allowing him to spell out his name in his music. When he played the sequence BACH, he found B to A created tension; moving to C created harmony with A, but not B, while the final note, G# (H) provided harmony for C and the original B. Here’s how it works on cello; it’s not bad, but there is no grand resolution. The Promenade from “Pictures at an Exhibition” is in E.

The black notes go somewhere between the larger gaps of the white notes, and there is a traditional confusion in how to tune them. One can tune the black notes by equal temper  (multiples of 21/12), or set them exactly in the spaces between the white notes, or tune them to any alternate set of ratios. A popular set of ratios is found in “Just temper.” The black note 6 from A4 (D#) will have wavelength of 0.784*26/12= √2 *0.784 m =1.109m. Since √2 =1.414, and that this is about 1.4= 7/5, the “Just temper” method is to tune D# to 1.4*.784m =1.098m. If one takes this route, other black notes (F#3 and C#3) will be tuned to ratios of 6/5, and 8/5 times 0.784m respectively. It’s possible that J.S. Bach tuned his notes by Just temper, but I suspect not. I suspect that Bach tuned these notes to fall in-between Just Temper and Equal temper, as I’ve shown below. I suspect that his D#3 might vibrated at about 1.104 m, half way between Just and Equal temper. I would not be surprised if Jazz musicians tuned their black notes more closely to the fifths of Just temper: 5/5 6/5, 7/5, 8/5 (and 9/5?) because jazz uses the black notes more, and you generally want your main chords to sound in tune. Then again, maybe not. Jimmy Hendrix picked the harmony D#3 with A (“Diabolus”, the devil harmony) for his Purple Haze; it’s also used for European police sirens.

To my ear, the modified equal temper is more beautiful and interesting than the equal temperament of todays electronic keyboards. In either temper music plays in all keys, but with an un-equal temper each key is distinct and beautiful in its own way. Tuning is engineering, I think, rather than math or art. In math things have to be perfect; in art they have to be interesting, and in engineering they have to work. Engineering tends to be beautiful its way. Generally, though, engineering is not perfect.

Summary of air column wave-lengths, measured in meters, and as a ratio to that for A4. Just Tempering, Equal Tempering, and my best guess of J.S. Bach's Well Tempered scale.

Summary of air column wave-lengths, measured in meters, and as a ratio to that for A4. Just Tempering, Equal Tempering, and my best guess of J.S. Bach’s Well Tempered scale.

R.E. Buxbaum, May 20 2013 (edited Sept 23, 2013) — I’m not very musical, but my children are.

Chaos, Stocks, and Global Warming

14 Replies

Two weeks ago, I discussed black-body radiation and showed how you calculate the rate of radiative heat transfer from any object. Based on this, I claimed that basal metabolism (the rate of calorie burning for people at rest) was really proportional to surface area, not weight as in most charts. I also claimed that it should be near-impossible to lose weight through exercise, and went on to explain why we cover the hot parts of our hydrogen purifiers and hydrogen generators in aluminum foil.

I’d previously discussed chaos and posted a chart of the earth’s temperature over the last 600,000 years. I’d now like to combine these discussions to give some personal (R. E. Buxbaum) thoughts on global warming.

Black-body radiation differs from normal heat transfer in that the rate is proportional to emissivity and is very sensitive to temperature. We can expect the rate of heat transfer from the sun to earth will follow these rules, and that the rate from the earth will behave similarly.

That the earth is getting warmer is seen as proof that the carbon dioxide we produce is considered proof that we are changing the earth’s emissivity so that we absorb more of the sun’s radiation while emitting less (relatively), but things are not so simple. Carbon dioxide should, indeed promote terrestrial heating, but a hotter earth should have more clouds and these clouds should reflect solar radiation, while allowing the earth’s heat to radiate into space. Also, this model would suggest slow, gradual heating beginning, perhaps in 1850, but the earth’s climate is chaotic with a fractal temperature rise that has been going on for the last 15,000 years (see figure).

Recent temperature variation as measured from the Greenland Ice. A previous post had the temperature variation over the past 600,000 years.

Recent temperature variation as measured from the Greenland Ice. Like the stock market, it shows aspects of chaos.

Over a larger time scale, the earth’s temperature looks, chaotic and cyclical (see the graph of global temperature in this post) with ice ages every 120,000 years, and chaotic, fractal variation at times spans of 100 -1000 years. The earth’s temperature is self-similar too; that is, its variation looks the same if one scales time and temperature. This is something that is seen whenever a system possess feedback and complexity. It’s seen also in the economy (below), a system with complexity and feedback.

Manufacturing Profit is typically chaotic -- something that makes it exciting.

Manufacturing Profit is typically chaotic — and seems to have cold spells very similar to the ice ages seen above.

The economy of any city is complex, and the world economy even more so. No one part changes independent of the others, and as a result we can expect to see chaotic, self-similar stock and commodity prices for the foreseeable future. As with global temperature, the economic data over a 10 year scale looks like economic data over a 100 year scale. Surprisingly,  the economic data looks similar to the earth temperature data over a 100 year or 1000 year scale. It takes a strange person to guess either consistently as both are chaotic and fractal.

gomez3

It takes a rather chaotic person to really enjoy stock trading (Seen here, Gomez Addams of the Addams Family TV show).

Clouds and ice play roles in the earth’s feedback mechanisms. Clouds tend to increase when more of the sun’s light heats the oceans, but the more clouds, the less heat gets through to the oceans. Thus clouds tend to stabilize our temperature. The effect of ice is to destabilize: the more heat that gets to the ice, the more melts and the less of the suns heat is reflected to space. There is time-delay too, caused by the melting flow of ice and ocean currents as driven by temperature differences among the ocean layers, and (it seems) by salinity. The net result, instability and chaos.

The sun has chaotic weather too. The rate of the solar reactions that heat the earth increases with temperature and density in the sun’s interior: when a volume of the sun gets hotter, the reaction rates pick up making the volume yet-hotter. The temperature keeps rising, and the heat radiated to the earth keeps increasing, until a density current develops in the sun. The hot area is then cooled by moving to the surface and the rate of solar output decreases. It is quite likely that some part of our global temperature rise derives from this chaotic variation in solar output. The ice caps of Mars are receding.

The change in martian ice could be from the sun, or it might be from Martian dust in the air. If so, it suggests yet another feedback system for the earth. When economic times age good we have more money to spend on agriculture and air pollution control. For all we know, the main feedback loops involve dust and smog in the air. Perhaps, the earth is getting warmer because we’ve got no reflective cloud of dust as in the dust-bowl days, and our cities are no longer covered by a layer of thick, black (reflective) smog. If so, we should be happy to have the extra warmth.

My steam-operated, high pressure pump

3 Replies

Here’s a miniature version of a duplex pump that we made 2-3 years ago at REB Research as a way to pump fuel into hydrogen generators for use with fuel cells. The design is from the 1800s. It was used on tank locomotives and steamboats to pump water into the boiler using only the pressure in the boiler itself. This seems like magic, but isn’t. There is no rotation, but linear motion in a steam piston of larger diameter pushes a liquid pump piston with a smaller diameter. Each piston travels the same distance, but there is more volume in the steam cylinder. The work from the steam piston is greater: W = ∫PdV; energy is conserved, and the liquid is pumped to higher pressure than the driving steam (neat!).

The following is a still photo. Click on the YouTube link to see the steam pump in action. It has over 4000 views!

Mini duplex pump. Provides high pressure water from steam power. Amini version of a classic of the 1800s Coffee cup and pen shown for scale.

Mini duplex pump. Provides high pressure water from steam power. A mini version of a classic of the 1800s Coffee cup and pen shown for scale.

You can get the bronze casting and the plans for this pump from Stanley co (England). Any talented machinist should be able to do the rest. I hired an Amish craftsman in Ohio. Maurice Perlman did the final fit work in our shop.

Our standard line of hydrogen generators still use electricity to pump the methanol-water. Even our latest generators are meant for nom-mobile applications where electricity is awfully convenient and cheap. This pump was intended for a future customer who would need to generate hydrogen to make electricity for remote and mobile applications. Even our non-mobile hydrogen is a better way to power cars than batteries, but making it mobile has advantages. Another advance would be to heat the reactors by burning the waste gas (I’ve been working on that too, and have filed a patent). Sometimes you have to build things ahead of finding a customer — and this pump was awfully cool.

Camless valves and the Fiat-500

8 Replies

One of my favorite automobile engine ideas is the use of camless, electronic valves. It’s an idea whose advantages have been known for 100 years or more, and it’s finally going to be used on a mainstream, commercial car — on this year’s Fiat 500s. Fiat is not going entirely camless, but the plan is to replace the cams on the air intake valves with solenoids. A normal car engine uses cams and lifters to operate the poppet valves used to control the air intake and exhaust. Replacing these cams and lifters saves some weight, and allows the Fiat-500 to operate more efficiently at low power by allowing the engine to use less combustion energy to suck vacuum. The Fiat 500 semi-camless technology is called Multiair: it’s licensed from Valeo (France), and appeared as an option on the 2010 Alfa Romeo.

How this saves mpg is as follows: at low power (idling etc.), the air intake of a normal car engine is restricted creating a fairly high vacuum. The vacuum restriction requires energy to draw and reduces the efficiency of the engine by decreasing the effective compression ratio. It’s needed to insure that the car does not produce too much NOx when idling. In a previous post, I showed that the rate of energy wasted by drawing this vacuum was the vacuum pressure times the engine volume and the rpm rate; I also mentioned some classic ways to reduce this loss (exhaust recycle and adding water).

Valeo’s/Fiat’s semi-camless design does nothing to increase the effective compression ratio at low power, but it reduces the amount of power lost to vacuum by allowing the intake air pressure to be higher, even at low power demand. A computer reduces the amount of air entering the engine by reducing the amount of time that the intake valve is open. The higher air pressure means there is less vacuum penalty, both when the valve is open even when the valve is closed. On the Alfa Romeo, the 1.4 liter Multiair engine option got 8% better gas mileage (39 mpg vs 36 mpg) and 10% more power (168 hp vs 153 hp) than the 1.4 liter cam-driven engine.

David Bowes shows off his latest camless engines at NAMES, April 2013.

David Bowes shows off his latest camless engines at NAMES, April 2013.

Fiat used a similar technology in the 1970s with variable valve timing (VVT), but that involved heavy cams and levers, and proved to be unreliable. In the US, some fine engineers had been working on solenoids, e.g. David Bowes, pictured above with one of his solenoidal engines (he’s a sometime manufacturer for REB Research). Dave has built engines with many cycles that would be impractical without solenoids, and has done particularly nice work reducing the electric use of the solenoid.

Durability may be a problem here too, as there is no other obvious reason that Fiat has not gone completely camless, and has not put a solenoid-controlled valve on the exhaust too. One likely reason Fiat didn’t do this is that solenoidal valves tend to be unreliable at the higher temperatures found in exhaust. If so, perhaps they are unreliable on the intake too. A car operated at 1000-4000 rpm will see on the order of 100,000,000 cycles in 25,000 miles. No solenoid we’ve used has lasted that many cycles, even at low temperatures, but most customers expect their cars to go more than 25,000 miles without needing major engine service.

We use solenoidal pumps in our hydrogen generators too, but increase the operating live by operating the solenoid at only 50 cycles/minute — maximum, rather than 1000- 4000. This should allow our products to work for 10 years at least without needing major service. Performance car customers may be willing to stand for more-frequent service, but the company can’t expect ordinary customers to go back to the days where Fiat stood for “Fix It Again Tony.”

Most Heat Loss Is Black-Body Radiation

7 Replies

In a previous post I used statistical mechanics to show how you’d calculate the thermal conductivity of any gas and showed why the insulating power of the best normal insulating materials was usually identical to ambient air. That analysis only considered the motion of molecules and not of photons (black-body radiation) and thus under-predicted heat transfer in most circumstances. Though black body radiation is often ignored in chemical engineering calculations, it is often the major heat transfer mechanism, even at modest temperatures.

One can show from quantum mechanics that the radiative heat transfer between two surfaces of temperature T and To is proportional to the difference of the fourth power of the two temperatures in absolute (Kelvin) scale.

Heat transfer rate = P = A ε σ( T^4 – To^4).

Here, A is the area of the surfaces, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, ε is the surface emissivity, a number that is 1 for most non-metals and .3 for stainless steel.  For A measured in m2, σ = 5.67×10−8 W m−2 K−4.

Infrared picture of a fellow wearing a black plastic bag on his arm. The bag is nearly transparent to heat radiation, while his eyeglasses are opaque. His hair provides some insulation.

Unlike with conduction, heat transfer does not depend on the distances between the surfaces but only on the temperature and the infra-red (IR) reflectivity. This is different from normal reflectivity as seen in the below infra-red photo of a lightly dressed person standing in a normal room. The fellow has a black plastic bag on his arm, but you can hardly see it here, as it hardly affects heat loss. His clothes, don’t do much either, but his hair and eyeglasses are reasonably effective blocks to radiative heat loss.

As an illustrative example, lets calculate the radiative and conductive heat transfer heat transfer rates of the person in the picture, assuming he has  2 m2 of surface area, an emissivity of 1, and a body and clothes temperature of about 86°F; that is, his skin/clothes temperature is 30°C or 303K in absolute. If this person stands in a room at 71.6°F, 295K, the radiative heat loss is calculated from the equation above: 2 *1* 5.67×10−8 * (8.43×109 -7.57×109) = 97.5 W. This is 23.36 cal/second or 84.1 Cal/hr or 2020 Cal/day; this is nearly the expected basal calorie use of a person this size.

The conductive heat loss is typically much smaller. As discussed previously in my analysis of curtains, the rate is inversely proportional to the heat transfer distance and proportional to the temperature difference. For the fellow in the picture, assuming he’s standing in relatively stagnant air, the heat boundary layer thickness will be about 2 cm (0.02m). Multiplying the thermal conductivity of air, 0.024 W/mK, by the surface area and the temperature difference and dividing by the boundary layer thickness, we find a Wattage of heat loss of 2*.024*(30-22)/.02 = 19.2 W. This is 16.56 Cal/hr, or 397 Cal/day: about 20% of the radiative heat loss, suggesting that some 5/6 of a sedentary person’s heat transfer may be from black body radiation.

We can expect that black-body radiation dominates conduction when looking at heat-shedding losses from hot chemical equipment because this equipment is typically much warmer than a human body. We’ve found, with our hydrogen purifiers for example, that it is critically important to choose a thermal insulation that is opaque or reflective to black body radiation. We use an infra-red opaque ceramic wrapped with aluminum foil to provide more insulation to a hot pipe than many inches of ceramic could. Aluminum has a far lower emissivity than the nonreflective surfaces of ceramic, and gold has an even lower emissivity at most temperatures.

Many popular insulation materials are not black-body opaque, and most hot surfaces are not reflectively coated. Because of this, you can find that the heat loss rate goes up as you add too much insulation. After a point, the extra insulation increases the surface area for radiation while barely reducing the surface temperature; it starts to act like a heat fin. While the space-shuttle tiles are fairly mediocre in terms of conduction, they are excellent in terms of black-body radiation.

There are applications where you want to increase heat transfer without having to resort to direct contact with corrosive chemicals or heat-transfer fluids. Often black body radiation can be used. As an example, heat transfers quite well from a cartridge heater or band heater to a piece of equipment even if they do not fit particularly tightly, especially if the outer surfaces are coated with black oxide. Black body radiation works well with stainless steel and most liquids, but most gases are nearly transparent to black body radiation. For heat transfer to most gases, it’s usually necessary to make use of turbulence or better yet, chaos.

Robert Buxbaum

Nuclear Power: the elephant of clean energy

10 Replies

As someone who heads a hydrogen energy company, REB Research, I regularly have to tip toe about nuclear power, a rather large elephant among the clean energy options. While hydrogen energy looks better than battery energy in terms of cost and energy density, neither are really energy sources; they are ways to transport energy or store it. Among non-fossil sources (sources where you don’t pollute the air massively) there is solar and wind: basically non-reliable, low density, high cost and quite polluting when you include the damage done making the devices.

Compared to these, I’m happy to report that the methanol used to make hydrogen in our membrane reactors can come from trees (anti-polluting), even tree farming isn’t all that energy dense. And then there’s uranium: plentiful, cheap and incredibly energy dense. I try to ignore how energy dense uranium is, but the cartoon below shows how hard that is to do sometimes. Nuclear power is reliable too, and energy dense; a small plant will produce between 500 and 1000 MW of power; your home uses perhaps 2 kW. You need logarithmic graph paper just to compare nuclear power to most anything else (including hydrogen):

log_scale

A tiny amount of uranium-oxide, the size of a pencil will provide as much power as hundreds of train cars full of coal. After transportation, the coal sells for about $80/ton; the sells for about $25/lb: far cheaper than the train loads of coal (there are 100-110 tons of coal to a train-car load). What’s more, while essentially all of the coal in a train car ends up in the air after it’s burnt, the waste uranium generally does not go into the air we breathe. The coal fumes are toxic, containing carcinogens, carbon monoxide, mercury, vanadium and arsenic; they are often radioactive too. All this is avoided with nuclear power unless there is a bad accident, and bad accidents are far rarer with nuclear power than, for example, with natural gas. Since Germany started shutting nuclear plants and replacing them with coal, it appears they are making all of Europe sicker).

It is true that the cost to build a nuclear plant is higher than to build a coal or gas plant, but it does not have to be: it wasn’t that way in the early days of nuclear power, nor is this true of military reactors that power our (USA) submarines and major warships. Commercial nuclear reactors cost a lot largely because of the time-cost for neighborhood approval (and they don’t always get approval). Batteries used for battery power get no safety review generally though there were two battery explosions on the Dreamliner alone, and natural gas has been known to level towns. Nuclear reactors can blow up too, as Chernobyl showed (and to a lesser extent Fukushima), but almost any design is better than Chernobyl.

The biggest worry people have with nuclear, and the biggest objection it seems to me, is escaped radiation. In a future post, I plan to go into the reality of the risk in more detail, but the worry is far worse than the reality, or far worse than the reality of other dangers (we all die of something eventually). The predicted death rate from the three-mile island accident is basically nil; Fukushima has provided little health damage (not that it’s a big comfort). Further, bizarre as this seems the thyroid cancer rate in Belarus in the wind-path of the Chernobyl plant is actually slightly lower than in the US (7 per 100,000 in Belarus compared to over 9 per 100,000 in the USA). This is clearly a statistical fluke; it’s caused, I believe, by the tendency for Russians to die of other things before they can get thyroid cancer, but it suggests that the health risks of even the worst nuclear accidents are not as bad as you might think. (BTW, Our company makes hydrogen extractors that make accidents less likely)

The biggest real radiation worry (in my opinion) is where to put the waste. Ever since President Carter closed off the option of reprocessing used fuel for re-use there has been no way to permanently get rid of waste. Further, ever since President Obama closed the Yucca Mountain burial repository there have been no satisfactory place to put the radioactive waste. Having waste sitting around above ground all over the US is a really bad option because the stuff is quite toxic. Just as the energy content of nuclear fuel is higher than most fuels, the energy content of the waste is higher. Burying it deep below a mountain in an area were no-one is likely to live seems like a good solution: sort of like putting the uranium back where it came from. And reprocessing for re-use seems like an even better solution since this gets rid of the waste permanently.

I should mention that nuclear power-derived electricity is a wonderful way to generate electricity or hydrogen for clean transportation. Further, the heat of hot springs comes from nuclear power. The healing waters that people flock to for their health is laced with isotopes (and it’s still healthy). For now, though I’ll stay in the hydrogen generator business and will ignore the clean elephant in the room. Fortunately there’s hardly any elephant poop, only lots and lots of coal and solar poop.

 

For parents of a young scientist: math

8 Replies

It is not uncommon for parents to ask my advice or help with their child; someone they consider to be a young scientist, or at least a potential young scientist. My main advice is math.

Most often the tyke is 5 to 8 years old and has an interest in weather, chemistry, or how things work. That’s a good age, about the age that the science bug struck me, and it’s a good age to begin to introduce the power of math. Math isn’t the total answer, by the way; if your child is interested in weather, for example, you’ll need to get books on weather, and you’ll want to buy a weather-science kit at your local smart-toy store (look for one with a small wet-bulb and dry bulb thermometer setup so that you’ll be able to discuss humidity  in some modest way: wet bulb temperatures are lower than dry bulb with a difference that is higher the lower the humidity; it’s zero at 100%). But math makes the key difference between the interest blooming into science or having it wilt or worse. Math is the language of science, and without it there is no way that your child will understand the better books, no way that he or she will be able to talk to others who are interested, and the interest can bloom into a phobia (that’s what happens when your child has something to express, but can’t speak about it in any real way).

Math takes science out of the range of religion and mythology, too. If you’re stuck to the use of words, you think that the explanations in science books resemble the stories of the Greek gods. You either accept them or you don’t. With math you see that they are testable, and that the  versions in the book are generally simplified approximations to some more complex description. You also get to see that there the descriptions are testable, and that are many, different looking descriptions that will fit the same phenomena. Some will be mathematically identical, and others will be quite different, but all are testable as the Greek myths are not.

What math to teach depends on your child’s level and interests. If the child is young, have him or her count in twos or fives, or tens, etc. Have him or her learn to spot patterns, like that the every other number that is divisible by 5 ends in zero, or that the sum of digits for every number that’s divisible by three is itself divisible by three. If the child is a little older, show him or her geometry, or prime numbers, or squares and cubes. Ask your child to figure out the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 100, or to estimate the square-root of some numbers. Ask why the area of a circle is πr2 while the circumference is 2πr: why do both contain the same, odd factor, π = 3.1415926535… All these games and ideas will give your child a language to use discussing science.

If your child is old enough to read, I’d definitely suggest you buy a few books with nice pictures and practical examples. I’d grown up with the Giant Golden book of Mathematics by Irving Adler, but I’ve seen and been impressed with several other nice books, and with the entire Golden Book series. Make regular trips to the library, and point your child to an appropriate section, but don’t force the child to take science books. Forcing your child will kill any natural interest he or she has. Besides, having other interests is a sign of normality; even the biggest scientist will sometimes want to read something else (sports, music, art, etc.) Many scientists drew (da Vinci, Feynman) or played the violin (Einstein). Let your child grow at his or her own pace and direction. (I liked the theater, including opera, and liked philosophy).

Now, back to the science kits and toys. Get a few basic ones, and let your child play: these are toys, not work. I liked chemistry, and a chemistry set was perhaps the best toy I ever got. Another set I liked was an Erector set (Gilbert). Get good sets that they pick out, but don’t be disappointed if they don’t do all the experiments, or any of them. They may not be interested in this group; just move on. I was not interested in microscopy, fish, or animals, for example. And don’t be bothered if interests change. It’s common to start out interested in dinosaurs and then to change to an interest in other things. Don’t push an old interest, or even an active new interest: enough parental pushing will kill any interest, and that’s sad. As Solomon the wise said, the fire is more often extinguished by too much fuel than by too little. But you do need to help with math, though; without that, no real progress will be possible.

Oh, one more thing, don’t be disappointed if your child isn’t interested in science; most kids aren’t interested in science as such, but rather in something science-like, like the internet, or economics, or games, or how things work. These areas are all great too, and there is a lot more room for your child to find a good job or a scholarship based on their expertise in theses areas. Any math he or she learns is certain to help with all of these pursuits, and with whatever other science-like direction he or she takes.   — Good luck. Robert Buxbaum (Economics isn’t science, not because of the lack of math, but because it’s not reproducible: you can’t re-run the great depression without FDR’s stimulus, or without WWII)