DST is the new Y2K

An interesting calendar problem has cropped up thanks to new Daylight Saving Time (DST) rules.  It's being extended by 4 weeks starting this year, beginning 3 weeks earlier and ending one week later under provisions of the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005.  Our campus calendar system, and presumably several other electronic clocks and calendars, need a patch to be made aware of the change.

So for the window of time between March 11 (when it now starts) and April 1 (when it would've started under the old rules), we might have some calendar havoc as schedule meetings don't post at the right time.  Luckily we have a good IT department that seems to have fixed it. 

Although I'm glad to see a proactive shift to save energy--is there a good reason not to do this?--this is almost certainly bigger news for IT folks than for others, since most people have no idea when DST starts or ends anyway, we just change our clocks when they tell us to.  They are also kind enough to do it over a weekend so if you somehow miss it you'll probably figure it out sometimes Sunday.  Still, I'm frankly amazed the whole scheme works.  There must be some social science jargon for events that work simply because everyone agrees to play along, but I'm afraid I lack the vocabulary.

Speaking of clocks, I got this spiffy National Geographic wall clock for christmas:

Traditionally styled and always accurate, the clock synchronizes each night to the U.S. atomic clock in Colorado and self-adjusts for daylight saving time, leap seconds, and other time changes.

That's right.  Leap seconds.

Posted at 10:38AM Feb 07, 2007 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  |  Comments[1]

2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference

Consider attending the 2007 North Carolina Science Blogging Conference, coming up Saturday, January 20. This is a free, open and public event for scientists, educators, students, journalists, bloggers and anyone interested in discussing science communication, education and literacy on the Web.

All information on the conference can be found at http://wiki.blogtogether.org/blogtogether

I'm going!

Posted at 02:48PM Jan 04, 2007 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  | 

Transit of Mercury

Astronomy is exciting when things pass in front of other things.  It can teach us a lot, like when galaxies pass in front of other things in deep space, which can cause a phenomenon called gravitational lensing.  Or, it can just look really swell and give us a window into how everything is moving around out there, as in eclipses.

Today, witness a fairly rare event: a transit of Mercury across the face of the sun.  You can get more information and witness a broadcast online at the Exploratorium.  The transit begins about 2:15pm Eastern Time.  Hopefully the webcast will be worthwhile: it's a reduced size image suitable for internet broadcast, of something already small and sort of fuzzy if you're not looking closely.

This is similar to a solar eclipse in that we'll see one object passing between us and the sun, manifesting in a shadow of that object.  The difference is that while the angular size of the moon is just about that of the sun from Earth perspective, resulting in occasional total eclipses, Mercury appears much, much smaller.  Like, this small (image from Exploratorium site):



I was fortunate to see the 1999 transit live through a solar telescope.  But that time, Mercury just clipped the edge of the solar face.  This time it will catch more of the disk from where I'm at, and will take around five hours.  On the east coast, the sun will set before the transit is finished.

Posted at 10:34AM Nov 08, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  | 

All nine lives used up

Genetic Savings & Clone is going out of business.

I discussed this a while ago: they were in the truly insane business of cloning cats for a steep fee.  This was actually a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  They only cloned five cats successfully, and sold only two to paying customers.  According to the AP story, they simply haven't been able to make the process commercially viable.

Posted at 11:39AM Oct 13, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  | 

2006 IgNobel Prizes

Last night was the Academy Awards...of bizarre research, also known as the IgNobel prizes.  I can't possibly add to them with commentary.

So, view the complete list here (servers are overwhelmed this morning).  And here are some of the highlights (from Reuters):

-- BIOLOGY - Bart Knols of Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands, the National Institute for Medical Research in Tanzania and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria and colleague Ruurd de Jong for showing that the female Anopheles gambiae mosquito, which carries malaria, is attracted equally to the smell of limburger cheese and to the smell of human feet.

"We have shown that three different Anopheles mosquito species prefer to bite different parts of a naked motionless volunteer and that this behavior is influenced by odors from those body regions," they wrote in their report, published in the Lancet medical journal in 1996.

-- ORNITHOLOGY - Ivan Schwab of the University of California Davis, and the late Philip R.A. May of the University of California Los Angeles, for explaining why woodpeckers do not get headaches.

-- NUTRITION - Wasmia Al-Houty of Kuwait University and Faten Al-Mussalam of the Kuwait Environment Public Authority, for showing that dung beetles are finicky eaters.

-- PEACE - Howard Stapleton of Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, for inventing a teenager repellent -- a device that makes a high-pitched noise that is annoying to teenagers but inaudible to most adults; and for later using the technology to make cellphone ringtones that teenagers can hear but not their teachers.

-- ACOUSTICS - D. Lynn Halpern, Randolph Blake and James Hillenbrand of Chicago's Northwestern University for a 1986 experiment aimed at discovering why the sound of fingernails scraping on a blackboard is so irritating.

-- MEDICINE - Francis Fesmire of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine and the team of Majed Odeh, Harry Bassan and Arie Oliven of Bnai Zion Medical Center in Haifa, Israel who both published studies entitled "Termination of Intractable Hiccups with Digital Rectal Massage."

-- MATHEMATICS - Nic Svenson and Piers Barnes of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, for calculating the number of shots a photographer must take to almost ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed.

Posted at 09:23AM Oct 06, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  | 

Orbital dominance!

The planet debate continues at the IAU 26th (or XXVIth for you Romans) General Assembly.  Interesting update today about the status of the draft proposal for a definition of a planet, released last week but subject to discussion and vote before becoming official.  In short, all your effort to create new 12-word mnemonics for remembering the planets has probably been for naught.

The main problem with the draft was that the definition was just too inclusive.  The liberally small size requirement could have potentially let several asteroids and Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) into the intentionally exclusive club of planethood.  Instead, the concept of orbital dominance has emerged from the conference as a better way to distinguish planets from everything else in the solar system.  If an object is the only major body in its orbit, that should count for something.  This concept lends weight to the nature of first eight planets, recognizing them as unique objects.  However, it eliminates Pluto.  Given that Charon is significantly close to Pluto in mass, neither is considered dominant.  It also pretty much slams the door on finding any other planets, a possibility the draft definition made very likely. 

So, Pluto, Charon, 2003 UB313, and other distanct KBOs will probably be banished to dwarf planet status.  Astronomers are still discussing possible names for these objects to separate them from asteroids.  The term "plutons" has already been dismissed.  "Pluton" is actually already a common geological term for igneous rocks (solidified magma).  I like this take on it, from the AP article:

"What were they thinking? The reaction in the geologic community was rolling of eyes," said Allen F. Glazner, a geologist at the University of North Carolina. "It would be like botanists trying to distinguish between trees and shrubs and coming up with the term 'animal.'"

I liked the 12 planet idea, but I think I'm happier with this definition.  The draft doesn't differentiate "major" planets, KBOs, and asteroids, just lumps them all together in one big happy planet family.  But I like orbital dominance, and using the word planet to mean something significant.  I'm guessing large, spherical objects in the Kuiper belt (i.e., Pluto and Friends) will end up being called Tombaugh Objects as a political way of recognizing Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto.  Seems nice, given that they're stealing a whole planet from him.

You also have to feel for the astrology community, who must have been primed for the 12-planet system.  It would have given them ready-made excuses for thousands of years of mistakes.  ("No, see if we'd have known about Ceres, we could have predicted you'd miss out on that big promotion!")

Posted at 05:04PM Aug 23, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  |  Comments[1]

Everything you know (about planets) is wrong

Right now the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is convening for their 26th General Assembly (or the XXVIth for you Romans).  Among their tasks is to formally define the idea of a planet and in turn, decide just how many planets are in this solar system, anyway. 

Today they've drafted a resolution which creates not only a definition for planets, but includes a definition for a new class of object called a "pluton" (including Pluto, its companion Charon, and the as-yet-unnamed 2003 UB313, an object similar to Pluto that's probably a bit larger but further away).  Should these definitions be accepted by the mass of eager astronomers, we'll suddenly have twelve planets! 


Image from here.

We're due for such a discussion, officially.  Modern observational techniques continue to find new examples to confound the generally accepted idea of a planet. 2003 UB313 (popularly called "Xena" but the IAU won't touch that one--anyway it's not "official" yet) is at least as big as Pluto but has a much more eccentric orbit.  And astronomers regularly find new objects beyond Pluto (an area with a great deal of dust and ice called the Kuiper belt).

Details can be found on the IAU's excellent question and answer page.  But I'll summarize the questions I had.

1. So what's a planet?
To be a planet, an object must satisfy two criteria.  First, the object has to orbit a star.  Second, it has to be massive enough such that it's mostly spherical.  (Size and shape are related.  If an object has a mass above 5 x 10^20 kg and diameter greater than 800 km, its own gravity will tend to form it into a spherical shape in time.  This is really pretty small if you think about it.  800 km is about 500 miles.  Pluto, the currently-accepted smallest planet, has a diameter of about 2300 km.)

2. There were nine.  Now twelve?  What the...?  Where did the extras come from?
I personally thought this was mainly about whether Pluto and 2003 UB313 were going to stay, or get into, the planetary club.  But the IAU proposal makes a point of not only letting them in, but further recognizing Charon and the largest asteroid, Ceres.  Not only that, but if the proposal gets approved, there are twelve more candidates for planethood (other plutons and asteroids), pending further observations and refinement of the definition.  And there will undoubtedly be other Kuiper belt objects found that will enter the planetary debate.

3. Where do they get off counting Charon?  Isn't it a moon?
The IAU considers Pluto and Charon a different breed altogether, calling them a "double planet" instead of a planet and satellite, because the center of mass of the system (the "barycenter") is above Pluto's surface (i.e., in the space between the two).  All moons orbit planets around the center of mass, but for the Earth's Moon and other large satellites around the outer planets, the barycenter is well below the planet's surface.  (I won't get into a big physics discussion about orbits and barycenters now, but have a look at the wikipedia definition here for an explanation and nice animations of the concept.)

Posted at 09:55AM Aug 16, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  |  Comments[2]

Go Hurricanes! (the hockey team, not the weather phenomenon)

We're all excited about the Hurricanes here in Hockey Town South, except for anyone feeling a little guilty about robbing long-suffering Buffalo fans of a chance at their first professional sports championship ever.  But never mind that!  We've had a team nearly ten whole years--I say we're due.

Some people have even attached celebratory flags to their cars, such as those pictured here.  These car flags have sprung up all over the world in support of various teams.  It's a relatively inexpensive way to take pride in your team while making your commute a bit louder. 

But there's more!

Scientists say the extra drag generated by the mini-flags could reduce a car's fuel economy by three per cent during a one-hour journey.

In the UK, where millions of fans are preparing for FIFA World Cup matches and associated soccer riots, these flags are more pervasive, and becoming a drag on both cars and the economy.  Scientists estimate it will cost fans about £1.2million (about $2.3 million) in extra fuel.

(Via The Annals of Improbable Research, which is probably Science!'s favorite web site and blog.)

Posted at 09:49AM Jun 05, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  | 

Why is ozone bad?

In response to yesterday's post, I was asked why, exactly, ozone was bad.  I mean, aren't we supposed to be upset about the lack of ozone?  Well, ozone is good for blocking solar radiation, but bad for breathing.  As to the reasons why, I tried to answer this, but was actually entirely wrong in my explanation.  The actual answer, from the EPA link, is this:

The same chemical properties that allow high concentrations of ozone to react with organic material outside the body give it the ability to react with similar organic material that makes up the body, and potentially cause harmful health consequences. When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs (see - "Ozone and Your Health" - www.epa.gov/airnow/brochure.html). Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and, throat irritation. Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections. People vary widely in their susceptibility to ozone. Healthy people, as well as those with respiratory difficulty, can experience breathing problems when exposed to ozone. Exercise during exposure to ozone causes a greater amount of ozone to be inhaled, and increases the risk of harmful respiratory effects. Recovery from the harmful effects can occur following short-term exposure to low levels of ozone, but health effects may become more damaging and recovery less certain at higher levels or from longer exposures (US EPA, 1996a, 1996b).

What's particularly devious about the air purification industry is that they've apparently been aware of the ozone emission.  But they put a spin on it:

Manufacturers and vendors of ozone devices often use misleading terms to describe ozone. Terms such as "energized oxygen" or "pure air" suggest that ozone is a healthy kind of oxygen. Ozone is a toxic gas with vastly different chemical and toxicological properties from oxygen.

This reminds me of a story.  In a previous job, we had a water cooler.  At some point we noticed that the water had turned an alarming shade of green, as it had begun to support a colony of algae.  When the guy came by to replace the green water, he told us that it meant the water was "healthy".  I asked that he replace it with unhealthy water.

Posted at 09:48AM May 12, 2006 by WILSON, JOSHUA in Bits of news  |  Comments[2]