Cool Science

I was making tremendous progress on my lecture writing when I stumbled on something that stopped me right in my tracks. I refer of course to the Christmas spirit.

Yes, I have some favorite new Christmas-ey youtube videos. To see what it's all about, how about a little sandstorm to get you in the mood. And if you're a scrooge and didn't like that, then how'd you like to live next to this guy?.

Now you see what this is all about and want more eh? For technical excellence and amazing sound-synch, this actually won some sort of award.

And while it's not the most visually stimulating of the lot, nothing gets me in the Christmas mood like Vince Guaraldi and the Peanuts theme.

I have a new mission in life: to out-do all of these. And to think Jenn's leaving me alone for the weekend...

Posted by Dave at 12:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

One trend sweeping the chemistry labs of the world is the use of microwaves to speed up reactions. It started up with people trying it in regular kitchen models, seeing their reactions go faster/better/etc. But now crazy-fancy lab microwaves with all kinds of cool features are the hip thing to have in your synthesis lab and no bench top is complete without one.

In an exchange with a former colleague that I though was funny but that I think led him to look at me somewhat awkwardly, I announced that I discovered a new microwave-enabled reaction. His eyebrows lifted visibly and he leaned in a little bit, and I announced that microwaving hot water WITH the tea bag led to more flavorful tea compared to microwaving the water separately and steeping the tea the "old fashioned way", as I now call it. Whether silly habit, or even sillier conviction, it's now my m.o. to nuke a mug of water with the tea bag.

Just to be clear - I nuke the water for about 2 minutes, and then I throw in the teabag and nuke it for about 30 seconds. If you try to do the whole thing with the teabag, it can come out way too strong.

The question bugging the chemistry/industry community is why some reactions proceed in microwaves that are slow, non-selective or not even reactive under other conditions, even if those 'other conditions' involve heating by other methods like using a hot plate. So there's the "heat stimulates the reactions" camp of the microwave community and the "inducing higher rotational states of molecules stimulates reactions" camp. Neither explanation is entirely satsifactory. As I mentioned above some microwave catalyzed reactions proceed where heating doesn't work, which is a problem with camp #1. On the other hand, rotational states are energetically boring and should not (in principle) play a big factor in whether a reaction goes forward, which is a problem with camp #2.

So this is an area where somebody could come in and make a big contribution if they could explain what's happening and settle the scores between the two camps. Who knows - maybe it's *both* (gasp).

And yes, I wrote this while drinking tea.

Posted by Dave at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's another entry in the vein of random opinions in science : of all the forms of pollution out there, light pollution probably seems the least pressing. When children's toys contain coma-inducing drugs, when Lake Tahoe is losing it's splendor and clarity, when all cities of the world are enshrouded in brown mist (which I remember all too well looking back on Boston while taking a harbor cruise one day), why worry about blazing street-lamps?

I think it's something primal. Imagine just a couple hundred years ago (or a few thousand or million for that matter): People looked up at a sky that blazed with the undiluted brilliance of bazillions of stars. The brightness, majesty and sheer number of stars they observed is really beyond any appropriate words and it's only something we can imagine today.

It's no wonder that recent cultures placed so much value and religious conviction in the stars. The night sky was the most spectacular thing human eyes could witness not just for recent generations, but for millions of years of evolution.

I've gotten attached to this whacky idea that we have a primal need to enjoy that light show in its full non-washed-out glory, that this need is somehow hardwired into our DNA. But today, even in the most favorable cases, we are unable to see the night sky that our ancestors saw. I guess Pixar will render it one day in a movie - and I suppose we could go to planetariums to see something like it - but the problem is that we have no idea what it's supposed to look like so anything will just be a guess.

It's better to recycle your plastics, glass and metals. It's better to buy a hybrid car, carpool, or walk/bike to work. It's better to buy pesticide/steroid free groceries at every turn. It's better to install a solar panel. But if you are so compelled, turn off the lights too.

Posted by Dave at 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

So I haven't written in a while and Jenn's making me look bad with this nablopomo business. And it's embarrassing that in my last post I was stressing over the Red Sox... I'm a lousy baseball fan, actually. but it was huge fun to watch them in the postseason. Anyway, I'm fighting off some sort of wicked fever/cold thing going on like 10 days now so this should be a good distraction:

C&EN news reported some pretty exciting news in structural biology. Stanford researchs have published two structures of G-protein-coupled receptors, which are the most popular drug targets out there, but which are very poorly understood. This brings the total of GPCR structures to 3. To try describe how rare and prized GPCR structures are, this is the scientific equivalent to waiting 86 years for the Sox to win a world series.

I can always count on the Ig Nobel prizes to lighten my day. My fave this year might be the Ig Nobel Economics prize given to the inventor of a real-life net and pulley for bank robbers. The demonstration video is priceless (caution : explicit).

I've decided to become more opinionated about random things in science. To begin, I think every high school graduate should memorize pi to 25 decimal places to earn their degree. Now I know that science is not memorization, but knowing pi is like being able to quote Shakespeare. I had to memorize soliloquys in high school (to be or not to be, etc. etc. etc.), so I think you should have to memorize pi too.

Posted by Dave at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)