Category Archives: General Science

Setting Up Camp - Field Camp 1

This is the first in a series of posts I'll be writing about my experience at the new Bartell field camp. This camp will serve as the base for summer geology/geophysics students. Geologists will be here 5 weeks, geophysicists 3 weeks. I arrived early to setup computer equipment and help get things going around the place.



I arrived Wednesday and unloaded the server, 10 laptops, associated wiring/network components, and my field gear. More on the setup in the next post when we have internet and the rest of the network up and running.

The first night here the freshman field trip was also at camp, spending the night before departing to Dalhart, TX. We all hooked up the projector, hung a sheet, and had a movie night in the dining hall (complete with popcorn). The movie was 2012, one of the better geological comedies if you ask anybody there.

The camp site is beautiful and my cabin is at the top, affording the best view. This view comes at the price of walking a VERY steep trail, and at 6,200 ft. it's easy to get a bit winded. After a couple days it is not a problem though.



So far the weather has been very cool and rainy in town, but fairly dry up at camp. It's hit freezing at night making a sleeping bag necessary in the cabins. The peaks off in the distance are still snow covered, but today were obscured by rain shafts.



Stay tuned for a tech update tomorrow and then the arrival of the rest of the crew on Sunday. The next few weeks should brings lots of interesting field work and interesting results.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Silverado Ct,Cañon City,United States

Progress on Ultrasonic Mapper

My last post was on the idea, brainstorming, and basic setup of a ultrasonic mapper intended for cave passages.  This post is an update on the prototype that is running now and will hopefully be tested relatively soon when a bit more hardware mounting has been done.

Attached are several photos of the current state of the system, a simple plexiglass mount was constructed to attach the servo and sounder to an old tripod.  This mount will be stronger on a final version and detachable from the tripod.  This is just a proof of concept prototype.

Since servos only rotate 180 degrees the final model will use two sounders opposed to each other to collect a full 360 degree profile.  This means a similar connector (5-pin mic style) will be used with two units mounted in one case, or it may be possible to go with a more sophisticated sounder.  Keep in mind that the point of the whole project is to construct the profiler on a student shoestring budget.  

Below is an 'image' collected.  The vertical line on the right side is the back of an office chair and the feature on the left is the back and seat of a couch.  This was scanned rather slowly over about 40 seconds with many pings averaged out to reduce error.

Since I collected these images I have implemented an intelligent algorithm that makes a quick three ping assessment and based upon the results it will move to the next position or ping up to an additional fifty times to reduce the uncertainty.

The next step will be to make an intelligent scanning rate method that will scan with lower resolution over smooth surfaces and slow down over surface features.  Hopefully the whole scan can be a 15-30 second ordeal allowing quick mapping of passages.

New Nuclear? - The Traveling Wave Reactor

For a few decades the debate has raged: are you pro or anti-nuclear power?  While nuclear power is a fantastic source of energy it can be dangerous and produces waste that we are currently hard pressed to store.  Movies such as 1979's 'The China Syndrome' have aided public fear of nuclear power once the new rubbed off in the 1960's.  Since the Three Mile Island accident, there have been no new reactors built in the US.  What if there were a new kind of reactor that was safer, cleaner, and used our stockpile of waste as fuel?

Lately there has been some press on the traveling wave reactor (TWR).  A spinoff from a Bill Gates backed company called TerraPower is working with the design, but it's really nothing new.  The TWR has been studied since the late 1950's and there are several articles in the literature that describe the theory of the units.

The principle of operation is to use depleted uranium and spent fuel that would traditionally be stashed away in a repository to fuel the reaction.  The reaction starts with ~10% enriched uranium at one end of the fuel column.  As a chain reaction takes place in the critical zone it converts material downstream into fissile material which is then the new critical zone.  Basically the critical zone that is actually producing the power moves down the fuel column with time.  This means if we were to look at a movie of where the power is produced through time we would see a soliton (wave that travels maintaining its shape) pass through the fuel column over a period of ~60 years.

The advantages of such a reactor include using depleted stocks of uranium and not producing material that could proliferate into atomic weapons.  As with every process governed by the laws of physics there is no free lunch.  Currently the reactor is a 'paper reactor'; no prototype has ever been built, though many have been run as numerical simulations.  The unfortunate thing is reactors often don't live up to their numerical ideal models and that could push the TWR into the realm of being currently non-economical.  While the units are smaller and safer they do produce less power and would require a significant investment to start building in an industry that is currently set in its ways.

In reality, the reactors sound fantastic, but I don't plan on seeing them anytime soon as the money for research, even energy related is just not there.  To get a reactor from paper to common production takes decades and often includes unforeseen problems.  Full scale reactors of the fission sort built in the early days had many kinks to work out.  Some would startup and then mysteriously shutdown by themselves; it turns out this was xenon poisoning, something that was handled poorly in the reactor design.  Other reactors such as the SL-1 were thought to be safe, but engineering flaws caused an accident and ended up impaling a man to the roof of the containment building with a control rod.  It has taken decades to get the current reactor technology to where it is.  While remaining optimistic about the TWR design, it is sadly not ready to swoop in and help us in the energy crisis.

TerraPower Website

The iPad: How it is Revolutionizing Field Work

It's not even been one year since the iPad hit the market and it is well on it's way to becoming an essential for many people around the world.  According to CNN, the iPad has the fastest adoption rate of any consumer advice (read the full article here).  I know that the iPad is difficult to put down, after standing in line all afternoon the day of the 3G release I was entertained the entire weekend.

But, what else can you do with the iPad.  We've all seen the movies, games, and flashy organization apps in the adds, but what about more difficult work?  The productivity category was initially slow to start, but now is full of options.

The numbers/pages/keynote set is $30 ($10 each) and has saved me several times.  When I needed to make a promotion slide last minute at a conference keynote came to my rescue.  I simply took images I needed from various emails and online, added some text, and in 10 minutes had a decent looking slide to submit.  Numbers has allowed me to use some handy computational workbooks in the field to make very simple models of data that is coming in.  Last, pages is very handy for quick edits on the road, or when out somewhere on campus.  There are a few glitches, but they have continually be improving, especially in the area of importing Microsoft Office documents.  So far, no track changes exists, but hopefully that will be coming soon.

For quick remote server administration I use iSSH.  This is really a fantastic app with the exception that the arrow keys/command keys on the bluetooth keyboard don't work forcing you to use onscreen keys.  This is the only limitation that prevents me from doing some full scale programming while connected to another machine back at home.

It's always important to know the weather while in the field and I use a combination of Storm Spotter and Radar Scope.  The developer of Storm Spotter is another OU meteorology student and I highly recommend his app.  Radar Scope does have a few things like spotter network, but it does not have any form of surface street map.  Storm Spotter uses google maps which makes exact location or storm chasing much easier.

Another field essential is taking notes.  There are many note apps out there and most do about the same things with different degrees of reliability.  For quick sketches I use Penultimate and for class notes I use Note Taker HD, which has a 'zoom box' that lets me write large with my stylus (the Pogo Sketch) and it is normal sized writing on the page.  Sundry notes is also around, but has not received any use by me for some time.

File sync is also an essential and can be done with Dropbox.  I already loved this service and the mobile app made life easier! Now I can save notes from the field and they instantly sync to my computer at home, my phone, and my laptop.

For field math there is Wolfram alpha (cloud service), Quick Graph, and many apps like MathTasks that do simple calculations on the fly.

Sometimes I'll use a GPS utility to mark out rough locations on a map or even the iPad ArcGIS to get an approximate distance/area.

Finally, we all need files and file editing in the field.  I use Papers to keep my scientific paper library with me at all times.  In the field or at a conference it's easy to find that paper you need a snippet from and email it directly to the interested party/conference goer.  Annotating PDF files is easy with iAnnotate PDF and viewing large files is nice with GoodReader (though Books now does this also).

While all these apps are productivity, you can bet all iPad owners have their favorite music service loaded, Netflix, and other entertainment too.  While I do love using my iPad it does have overheating issues when working out in direct sun on a hot day.  The screen is great at letting solar radiation in, and trapping the re-emitted IR inside the device,  shutting it off in ~10 minutes.  What can you do? Use a case with an open back and keep the screen shaded.  I'm not quite ready to quit carrying paper notes all together, but it's getting close and my daily/travel backpack is getting lighter every year.  Read about other great apps for large scale studies used in Pompeii here.

Images are property Apple.

Physics of a Beer Head- It's All About Tension Gradients

Who doesn't like a good beer? Geologists/geophysicists are always appreciate a nice cold glass of their favorite beverage poured by a skilled bartender that produces a nice frothy head that persists for the entire experience.  The question is why does the head not disappear quickly like soap bubbles?  Douglas Durian and Srinivasa Raghavan wrote up a 'quick study' in the May 2010 issue of Physics Today.  This article is based on that article with some additional information.  Durian and Raghavan also discuss soap bubbles and present high magnification photos of foam structures, but those will be ignored here as their method of persistence is quite different than that of beer foam.

When beer is produced proteins are present in the mix.  If you enjoy the cloudy wheat beers you are seeing proteins precipitate out! Actually something called the isoelectric point determines what happens to the proteins.  If the pH of the beer is too close to the IEP the proteins precipitate out.  The further the pH gets from the IEP the more soluble the proteins are.  Why does it matter?

Remember from high school biology that proteins have hydrophilic and hydrophobic parts to them.  This means that one part of the protein 'likes' water and will immerse itself, but the other end does not like water and tries to stay away from it.  When we look at a foam magnified there are small fluid sections in-between the air bubbles.  Proteins orient themselves in the bubble walls.  Say that a bubble begins to stretch thin and is in danger of bursting.  The stretching of the wall means there are fewer proteins in the middle where the wall is thin and more on the edges.  Proteins can change the surface tension and this gradient is surface tension causes liquid to flow to the thin section, restoring the stability of the bubble.  This effect is known as the Gibbs-Marangoni effect, and is in fact a strong example of the phenomena.

This Gibbs-Marangoni effect was in fact first observed in glasses of wine (pictured) and discussed by Lord Kelvin's brother James back in the mid 1800's.  Carlo Marangoni studied the idea for this dissertation and the solutions of the problem were formalized by Williard Gibbs.  (Yep, that the same guy that independently developed vector analysis, Gibbs free energy, etc)

So is there anything other than pH that can change the persistence of head? Absolutely! Due to gravity the fluid drains to the bottom over time which destabilizes the foam.  There isn't much to do about that, but we can combat Ostwald ripening.  Basically this mean that gas diffuses from smaller bubbles to larger ones.  Laplace described this knowing that the large bubbles have a smaller curvature and therefore lower pressure than small bubbles.  According to the article brewers can add about 20ppm of nitrogen to the beer to slow this process.

The items discussed in this article apply across many scientific items.  There is an everyday example that scientists would call Benard-Marangoni convection, but you probably call it boiling water.

Once again these pictures are from the interweb and not my property.  

Deepwater Horizon and Hydrates

By now all are well aware of the well blowout in the gulf at the 'Deepwater Horizon' site.  Thus far several attempts have been made to curb the flow of crude into the gulf, but none have worked.  One of the first attempts was to use a dome structure to cover the rupture and direct the oil to a waiting barge.  This dome quickly filled with gas hydrate and was made much more buoyant by the hydrate (density of hydrate is less than that of water, especially sea water).  Attached is a picture of the 4-story dome courtesy telegraph.co.uk.  I feel it is important to point out a few things about hydrate the media has either left out or stated incorrectly.

First, what is gas hydrate? The most common buzz word I've seen is 'crystalline gas' or 'solid gas'.  These are contradictions.  We know there are three basic states of matter: solids, liquids, and gasses. (There are also plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates, string-net liquids, and so on.) You can see that a 'solid gas' is simply incorrect! Gas hydrates are cages of water molecules with a guest molecule of gas trapped inside.  There are different types of cages for different sizes of guest molecules.  Though the material can look like ice it is fundamentally different.

Under the ocean there is quite a lot of methane hydrate.  We have known about hydrate for some time and it's important for past climate change, possible energy production, and as a potential hazard for sea slopes and drilling operations.  Dr. Robert Bea of UC Berkeley has suggested that Halliburton cementing the well only 20 hours before the explosion on the rig is important.  When cement is hardening is releases heat. This heat of crystallization could have heated the hydrate up.  The hydrate weakened the concrete and as it was melting released its gas, causing a surge of pressure to the rig.

Hydrates have been a problem to the industry before, clogging pipelines and apparatus.  Hydrates only form under certain pressure and temperature conditions, so the areas can simply be kept out of P-T ranges where hydrate would be stable.  This is easier said than done, and sometimes inhibitors are injected.  Chemicals such as methanol decrease the stability of hydrate.

So what is the plan now? Currently an attempt to place a new, capped section of pipe on is underway.  The difficulty with any plugging operation is the pressure at which the fluid is shooting out.  If this fails a smaller dome has been built in hopes that it will remain warmer and hydrate will not be stable. There are also measures in place to inject hydrate inhibitors, though this could have unknown environmental impacts.  Currently oil continues to gush out at about 210, 000 gallons/day.  Below is an image from NOAA (May 11) showing the spread of oil then some links to follow.  Numerical modeling of the spread has done surprisingly well as has put rapid mathematical modeling in the spotlight also.

Afterthought:
I received a question about why the flow rate estimates were so widely varied.  In the video of the flow you can see both oil and gas phases coming out of the pipe. If it were just one phase, knowing the scale and frame rate of the pipe would be sufficient to get an accurate estimate. It could be that as oil is releasing pressure more hydrate is dissociating and causing the bursts of mixed gas making the flow hard to figure.


LINKS:
Video of Oil Leak
NOAA Page on the Accident (Updated Daily)
LA Times Article on Dr.Bea's Idea

Chernobyl

Chernobyl nuclear unit number four blew up 24 years ago today.  Officially the disaster killed about 31 people, but we all know that the death toll is much higher.  Today I'd like to briefly discuss the very basic premise of the accident, what actions the Soviets took, and what we can learn from this accident.
The accident occurred during a test that really should have already been preformed.  In the event of the plant losing external power it would take backup generators about a minute to get up to speed and start coolant circulating again.  This was dangerous and the engineers believed that they could use the inertia of the already spinning turbines to generate enough power to run the plant for about 45 seconds.  The details are well documented, but in the end the power spiked, control rods jammed, and the reactor went out of control.  
These RMBK reactors are inherently unstable at low power levels, and the operators did not understand reactor physics well enough to understand what the instrumentation was telling them.  The control rods only reached just over 2m into the reactor before they seized.  The reactor was 7m deep.  
There were two explosions, a steam explosion, followed closely by an explosion from nuclear excursion.  All of this is well explained elsewhere, but at the time the causes were unclear.  In fact, several of the operators thought a tank of hydrogen had exploded, even though they could see chunks of graphite on the ground outside.  
Almost immediately radioactive dust was showering from vents in the plant and many crew received lethal doses and a 'nuclear tan' very quickly.  They were simply replaced with workers from the other reactors.  Some were sent i to lower the control rods manually, only to find that none of that existed anymore.  They instead saw fire hoses dangling unmanned, the firefighters had already fallen after standing right above the core of the unit.   
The government lied in many cases to the workers and public.  One community was given masks and iodine but didn't distribute them to prevent a panic.  The supplies went to waste.  After that liquidation crews were brought in.  The robots were unreliable and failed quickly.  The government sent soldiers onto the reactor with little protection, they were called 'bio-robots'.  The human side of the story is excellently captured in the book Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster, available here.  The book is also available in many libraries and I highly recommend it, though some of the stories are graphic. Pictured above is the reactor after the explosion, it was enclosed in a hastily built sarcophagus, which is now unstable and must be rebuilt.  The condition of the tunnels dug under the plant by 'bio-robots' is also unknown.  The next picture is of a robot bulldozer being tested.  These were used to bury the cities, but failed to work well and were often replaced by humans.  Some photos from the zone also show spots, recording the massive radiation release.  
So what can be learned from this accident? The obvious results are more training, containment domes, and better reactor design.  The other lessons are about government and public education.  Let's focus on the less controversial public education issue.  Many people refused to leave the zone because nothing was wrong.  They couldn't understand the power of the atoms, the sky was blue, and there was a fire in the distance; why should it mean anything to them? This is why the public needs a basic science education, but now I fear the US has gone too far and induced a fear of the atom.  Nuclear power is a technology to be respected, not feared.  With proper construction, safety measures, and current technology there is no reason to fear an accident in the US.  Waste products are another issue entirely.  
In closing I encourage you to do some research and learn about this disaster.  Also remember all the brave 'bio-robots' that were sent to the station to die while attempting to contain the situation.  You can watch this short video for some photographs from the area.  A documentary about the accident is also available on youtube. 
(None of the photographs are mine, all sourced from Wikipedia)

Wisconsin Meteor - A Great Time to Play with Radar Data

As I'm sure you've heard by now last week, what is believed to be a meteor, passed into our atmosphere and exploded over Wisconsin.  The light was seen as far away at St.Louis, MO and was captured on a camera at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  The video frames have been played on most news networks and are available everywhere online.
As you can imagine the 911 call center (actually 911 call centers over 6 states) was/were flooded with reports of the light, the sonic boom, and other observations.  The NWS also noticed a new trail appear on the radar.  I downloaded the level 2 data and plotted it up.  First we'll look at the reflection.

You can see the trail in the SW corner of Iowa county.  (KDVN radar)  Next is just a blow up of this image.  The meteor path was from west to east.  According to NASA scientists the meteorite was likely not from the current Gamma Virginids meteor shower, but a rock from the asteroid belt.
Next it would be interesting to look at this trail in 3D.  Using level II radar data this is possible.  The next images show this from several different angles.   The directions are labeled so it's easy to get bearings on which way you're looking.  If you notice the trail is sloping down slightly towards the SE.

The average hight for the event was right around 24,000-25,000 ft.  Looking at the plot you can see how small the plot was and how large the strongest reflector in the center is! A few back of the envelope calculations can be done using basic trig to determine some interesting things.  You can try this yourself.  I've posted a link to the radar data at the bottom and a link to a website where you can download a 21 day trail of GR2Analyst.  Just open the data and start slicing it!

Finally a sample of the meteorite has been recovered at is being examined currently.  There should be many other samples in the area also and hunters are already out looking for them.  With all this in mind you should remember it's not that uncommon for meteorites to enter the atmosphere.  Washing machine size chunks of rock are not abnormal and they burn up in the atmosphere.  If any material makes it to the ground it's probably never seen.  (Since most of the Earth is covered in water most probably hit there.)
 
Below: Scientists prepare a sample of the meteorite for a test


LINKS:
Gibson Ridge Software
Data for This Radar Scan

Highway to Hail

On the evening of April 6th, 2010 we had a nice little storm system move through central Oklahoma.  Short term models earlier in the day were breaking out a supercell around the OKC area about sunset and though those models had done exceptionally well with events in the previous days they missed the storm type here.

On the right is a radar image from that evening where the boundary is visible.  About this time the storm was moving over Norman producing moderately high winds, heavy rain, and small hail.

Above is an image I took right before the precipitation hit Norman, as the hail began to fall I noticed that it was a prime example of what we had already been discussing in cloud physics.

Hail grows around a hail embryo.  Commonly this is graupel or large drops, but sometimes insects have become entrained in the updraft and become the center of a hailstone!  Hail can undergo 'dry' and 'wet' growth implying things about where it is in the cloud at the time.  Without going into too much detail on this we can say that dry growth produces much less dense hail (more air and cloudy looking) while wet growth produces clear layers of almost solid ice.  Switching methods of growth produces the 'onion' like texture on the inside of a hailstone that so many falsely attribute to multiple trips through the updraft.  The trajectory of most hailstones (we think) is remarkably flat!  It is rare for them to recycle through the storm and when they do its not multiple trips.

The shape of the hailstone also tells us about its environment.  There are many excellent papers out on the topic.  After looking at the image above of some hailstones collected from this storm I encourage you to read more on the topic and next time it hails be sure to pick some up and think about the environment that could have formed it.  Could this stone have recycled? Could it have been warmer than it's environment (think latent heating)? Did it melt significantly on the way down?

Misconceptions in Science


After some prompting I began to think about things the general public thinks about when 'science' comes up. Commonly this seems to instantly conjure up images of labs, people in white coats, and one adjective...Hard. The links below are two articles I was required to write, but then really enjoyed them and will probably continue to casually investigate the common stigmas embedded in science.

Even just last night I was sharing the joys of astronomy with two of my smaller elementary school cousins and found out the facts I was sharing were not only new to the kids, but many of the adults present also. This has sparked another thought, how often do we remember that the general population has not had much more than 1000 level science training, and were probably not even that interested then? Could it be we are using the wrong approach? Are we not showing how science applies to their lives?
Papers: