Ochsendorf is a structural engineer on a mission to do what all engineers need to aspire to do: to produce new creations that are environmentally friendly. He’s interested in engineering for the ecological age by using lessons from history.  I respect what Ochsendorf is doing because I have a great concern for the condition of our environment and our dwindling supply of nonrenewable energy sources. During his lecture (which can be seen here), Ochsendorf mentions that engineering involving the environment is “the art of directing the great sources of power and Nature to the use and benefit of Man,” a quote by Thomas Tredgold. Ochsendorf wants to encourage the use of renewable, biodegradable sources because, he says, designers need to remember that the products they use are going to come to the end of their lives.

According to a chart that Ochsendorf presents during his lecture, construction is the category that has the largest consumption of raw materials in the last century. These days, structures are not built efficiently, and Ochsendorf makes a few suggestions for how to fix this: high-quality structures that are permanent and are made of reusable materials; structures that are temporary, such as the grass bridge he discussed in his thesis for Cornell; or modular structures that can be changed over time (by replacing certain sections).

In addition to studying ways to improve modern structures, Ochsendorf studies historical structures and is trying to create engineering tools that can be used to determine the stability and safety of a structure’s materials and the structure as a whole. He is also working on tools that can help an engineer determine the stability of a structure before it is even built. Ochsendorf shares Petroski’s creed that engineers must review the work of the engineers that came before them in order to maintain the infrastructure that exists and produce better designs for the future.

After reading the novel “Success through Failure” for class, I was shocked to stumble upon an article titled, “How You Learn More from Success than Failure.” Naturally, I clicked on the link (here it is). I found the article on Scientific American Online and it was published by Frederik Joelving. This article offers an entirely different viewpoint than Petroski’s “Success Through Failure” on the relationship between successes and failures. Joelving suggests that our brains are more likely to succeed by repeating successful processes than by learning from failures and fixing the mistakes. On the other hand, Petroski’s “Success Through Failure” emphasizes  that failure is the key to design, and if we understand how and why things fail or might fail, this provides insight into how to successfully redesign them. The title says it all: success is reached through failure.

In his article, Joelving uses research involving monkeys as an example. Monkeys were trained to complete a two-choice visual task. When the monkeys succeeded, their performances improved in the next trial. However, when the monkeys failed, their performances were left to chance in the next trial even if it had mastered the task. Basically, instead of learning from their mistakes, the monkeys were confused by their mistakes. Joelving says this can be applied to human brains too and many aspects of our daily lives- situations in which failure has no consequences, but success is rewarding in some way. Joelving explains that there is a surge in the neurotransmitter dopamine that gives us a pleasurable feeling when we are successful, and this tells our brains to continue to do what we are doing. He concludes the article by saying that we would do well to make a conscious effort to pay more attention to our failures and learn from them. Based on the novel “Success through Failure,” Petroski would agree with this last statement. However, this is merely the conclusion to Joelving’s article, and his main argument contradicts Petroski’s main argument. That said, the failures that these two writers discuss are different: Joelving focuses on failures that have no consequence, while Petroski discusses a broad range of failures, some with fatal consequences, and some with no consequence. Which one of them is right? Does success come from success or failure?

Scientists in the AIDS research field have been struggling to find a vaccine to prevent HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), which later becomes full-blown AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), which makes the infected person very sick and eventually kills them. AIDS originated in Africa and came into the United States at the end of the hippie movement of the 1960s. This is not surprising, considering HIV is a sexually transmitted infection, and the slogan of the hippies was, “Make Love, not War.” In the past forty years, scientists have come up with antiretroviral drug treatment for HIV, but no cure has been found for AIDS yet. The purpose of the antiretroviral drug treatment is to keep the amount of HIV in the body at a minimum and delay the weakening of the immune system, thus delaying the inevitable onset of AIDS. Many people choose to take two or more antiretroviral drugs simultaneously, which is called combination therapy. Combination therapy decreases the resistance of HIV, because it is more difficult for the virus to become quickly resistant to multiple drugs.

In the past, AIDS vaccines have been completely useless. In fact, in some cases, such as Merck’s 2007 clinical trial of an AIDS vaccines, the vaccine attempts are counterproductive. In that particular trial, more people injected with the vaccine contracted HIV than people who received the placebo. However, on September 24, 2009, it was announced that a trial was conducted in which “an experimental HIV vaccine effectively reduced the number of people who contracted the virus by nearly a third.” Although that is not much, it is better than going backwards, like in the 2007 trial. Are we getting closer to finding a cure?

To see the article published on the new HIV vaccine, click here.

To see the article describing antiretroviral drug treatment, click here.

JUST KIDDING! I was just demonstrating A.D.D. in the last post...

A while ago, when I was talking to my beloved high school calculus teacher, he brought up something I had never given much thought to: the effects of technology on the attention spans of children. I then did some research to see if there had been articles written on this subject. It is not as popular a subject as I had predicted, but I found a good one in BBC News written by Marc Settle called “Is Computer Use Changing Children?” that can be found HERE.

This article, written a little over a year ago, is about neuroscientist Baroness Greenfield and her belief that computer use is affecting children’s brains. After ten years of research, Greenfield has decided that there could be a correlation between children’s attention spans and the growing use of computers. “The last ten years have seen a three-fold increase in the prescription of the drug Ritalin, a drug used for Attention Deficit Disorder,” said Greenfield. More and more kids are being diagnosed with A.D.D. This may be due to the fact that children these days have so many electronics designed for their entertainment that they are no longer growing up with the knowledge of how to entertain themselves. Also, Greenfield suggests that children may grow accustomed to the rapid responses of technologies and be more likely to become impatient with slower processes.

I believe there is validity to Greenfield’s arguments. In fact, I myself provide a perfect example of her ideas. I started using a computer in sixth grade, at the tender age of eleven. Although this is not quite as young as children these days are starting to use computer games, video games, and other electronic entertainment, I was still young and my brain was still developing. I don’t have much trouble focusing if I am in a room without much distraction, but if there are distractions, it takes me longer to complete a task than it should take. My computer and my phone provide the most distraction. For example, throughout the process of writing this blog, I have visited a couple of websites (Facebook and YouTube) and I have also sent and received a couple of text messages on my phone. Do I have A.D.D. too?

 A while ago, when I was talking to my beloved high school calculus teacher, he brought up something I had never given much thought to: the effects of technology on the attention spans of children. I then did some research to see if

When I went home this weekend, I had to get directions to drive to a cross country meet. I used Google Maps to find my way. Before I learned to drive, I didn’t pay much attention to the road or the route to get to most places. However, once I started driving, I was forced to learn the setup of interstates and become familiar with how the roads and streets around me are connected.

Luckily, due to technology such as GPS devices and websites such as MapQuest and Google Maps, I don’t need to store a map in my head. GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers use satellites to determine the exact location of your vehicle. They then calculate a course that will lead you to your desired destination from your current location. MapQuest and Google Maps function in a similar manner: you simply enter your initial location and final destination, and the system finds the route on the map that should take the least amount of time by its calculations. These technologies are brilliant ideas, because they help people tremendously in finding their way around and saving time. Unfortunately, GPS devices and websites serve as yet another technology that decreases real human interaction and the need for human brainpower. These days, people on the road who are lost have no need to stop and ask for directions, because they can simply re-program their GPS receivers. Also, they no longer have to think, remember, or find a solution when they get lost. The technology does the thinking for them.

Like all technology, there are flaws in the positioning system technologies, and there are downsides to using this technology as well. GPS devices and websites are not always successful, because sometimes roads that have been closed, opened, or altered are not updated on these electronic maps. Often, people get lost due to faulty or out-of-date directions. Fortunately, although GPS receivers may get you lost, they can recalculate a route and eventually lead you to the place you’re looking for.

For class we have been reading the novel Success through Failure, by Henry Petroski. Throughout its pages, the book reiterates the concept that the title suggests: the failures or possible failures in the design of technology ultimately pave the way to a successful design.

While I was doing my reading today, one particular example that Petroski used to illustrate one of his ideas caught my eye. It was on page 95 and it was about the sinking of the Titanic:

“Imagine that the Titanic had not struck the iceberg on her maiden voyage. The example of that ‘unsinkable ship’ would have emboldened success-based shipbuilders to model more and more and larger and larger ocean liners after her. Eventually, albeit by chance, the Titanic or one of those derivative vessels would likely have encountered an iceberg—with obvious consequences. Thus, the failure of the Titanic contributed much more to the design of safe ocean liners than would have her success. That is the paradox of engineering and design.”

Petroski uses the example of the Titanic to demonstrate that earlier failures are preferable, because they allow less time for progress to be made in the wrong direction. It is better that the Titanic sank on its first trip rather than succeeding. If it had been a successful trip, many larger ships would have been designed the same way. Having a larger ship crash into an iceberg later on down the road would have been more catastrophic than the sinking of the Titanic, because so many materials and so much time would have been wasted by building ships based on the Titanic design.

This passage reminded me of something Dr. Ross brought up in class today, relating the ‘success through failure’ doctrine to the Apollo program: it had been suggested that the fire in the command module of Apollo 1 was essential to the continued development of the Apollo program. Although the fire resulted in the death of three astronauts, it was precisely what needed to happen in order to allow the Apollo program to continue. If the launch had been successful, and problems had sprung up later instead, when the shuttle was in space, then both the program and the spaceship may have been lost. Without the failed spaceship at hand, the program would have had nothing to build on towards ultimate success.

                Although technology has changed the lives of humans in many ways, the human body and all of its travails have not changed. Like humans of all ages, people in this age still suffer from physical injuries, people suffer from mental disorders, and people experience a wide spectrum of emotions. The difference nowadays is that we have the Internet available to tell us what’s wrong. Ever since high-speed Internet access has been available to the average person, a world of information is at the fingertips of anyone who wishes to use the Internet. In the past, people visited a doctor when they experienced physical ailments, or simply lived with the problem and its consequences. However, presently, people can research their problems right at home and try to find a solution online. People can altogether avoid spending the time and money to consult an expert on their issues. This could be detrimental to our health.

                Personally, I have taken this route numerous times. It seems like a number of problems has sprung up in the past year or two, and I am not eager to spend money on a professional when I can find answers without leaving my computer. I have had several different injuries in the past couple of years due to soccer and running cross country.  They were all minor injuries with the exception of one. My major injury was tendonitis in the rectus femoris tendon, the tendon connected to the quadriceps. I had trouble walking and running for two months. That was the only injury for which I went to physical therapy. I self-diagnosed my other injuries, such as a calf strain, achilles tendonitis, a twisted ankle and sciatic nerve pain. In addition to researching physical problems, I have used the Internet for researching psychological problems and emotions as well. A friend of mine is going through severe depression, and it is so easy to read up a broad range of perspectives on depression, or any given psychological subject for that matter. Unfortunately, no one can be certain of why a human behaves a certain way, because the human brain is so complex, and every individual is different. Self-diagnosis of physical health problems is much simpler than self-diagnosis of psychological problems.

                It makes me wonder, will these health professions become less popular due to the Internet, just as printed newspapers and video stores are becoming less popular?

After reading Angle of Attack for this class, I had a strong urge to watch the movie Apollo 13. The last time I watched the movie was when our VCR player was still working, at least six or seven years ago. Back then, I didn't completely understand the details of what went wrong in the spacecraft, but after reading Angle of Attack, I have a much better understanding of the series of Apollo spacecrafts and the events that led up to the Apollo 11 mission and the beginning of the movie Apollo 13. It was much more fun to watch the movie when I had a better idea of what was going on, and as usual, I cried at the end. 

I'm sure most people are familiar with the movie, but I'll explain it a little. Tom Hanks plays astronaut Jim Lovell, who was joined on the mission by crew members Fred Haise and Jack Swigert. At the beginning of the movie, Lovell sees Neil Armstrong walk on the moon and he longs to do the same thing. Soon, he gets his chance. A couple of days before the launch, it was discovered that one of the three astronauts, Ken Mattingly, may have been on the verge of getting the measles, so they replaced him with backup Jack Swigert (although Mattingly never actually got the measles). The launch took place on April 11, 1970 at Cape Kennedy, Florida. Relatively soon after the launch, there was an explosion and rupture in an oxygen tank in the service module, causing another oxygen tank to fail. As a result, the command module began to lose its supply of electricity, light, and water. Then those famous words were uttered, first by Swigert and then by Lovell, “Houston, we have a problem.” The mission was aborted, and Apollo 13 had to circle around the moon without landing on it and return to the Earth. The astronauts hardly slept during the flight. They didn’t eat much and drank very little to conserve water, causing them to lose a lot of weight. It got colder inside the spacecraft and Haise developed a very high fever. The engineers in Houston worked very hard to help the exhausted astronauts fix the numerous problems with Apollo 13, and in the end, it was Ken Mattingly that returned the crew members home safely. I think it was a brilliant stroke of luck for Mattingly to be exposed to the measles and prevented from flying, because he discovered the ultimate solution of finding enough power to return Haise, Lovell, and Swigert to the Earth at a pace that could be survived. If Mattingly had been on the spaceship, he would not have been able to experiment with the model in Houston, and the astronauts may have been lost in space forever.

At one point during the movie, Lovell mentions that the astronaut is the visual representative of an involved team that works behind the scenes (alluding to engineers). This reminded me of a topic that came up in class the other day when we were discussing Angle of Attack. It was agreed that astronauts are depicted as the heroes, and all of the hard work that engineers put into space missions is ignored by the majority of people. This is seen in Apollo 13 as well: people everywhere watch and worry as reporters talk about the problems on board the spacecraft and they hear snippets of the astronauts' dialogue. However, what they don't realize is that, behind the scenes, a huge group of engineers at the NASA headquarters are working their butts off to find a solution to every problem because the astronauts' lives are at stake.

After reading about the engineers who designed Apollo 11, I am astounded at what the men at the NASA headquarters during the Apollo 13 mission were able to accomplish. Unlike the Apollo 11 team of engineers, this team had to improvise and come up with solutions in very small segments of time. To make matters worse, they had the responsibility of three mens' lives hanging over their heads, creating a sense of panic. It is incredible that these engineers were able to keep their heads on straight, cooperate with each other, and improvise new plans in such a short amount of time among all the adversity.

A couple of days ago, my friends and I drove to Blockbuster to return a movie we had rented, and we noticed that there was a large banner hung across the front window of the store saying, "Store Closing." Two of my friends, who had been going to that particular Blockbuster since they were young children, were extremely upset about this discovery. I can't say I was surprised. With technologically advanced movie rental companies such as Movies on Demand and Netflix, this was bound to happen sometime. I had already noticed that the movie rental stores in our town were not as busy as they used to be. My mom and I had discussed that months before. In the past year or two, my family and friends and I have been contributing to the failure of these businesses by using the online businesses. Technology is to blame. Nowadays, you can simply pick up the TV remote and gain access to a movie of your choice immediately, without ever getting up off of the couch. The only downside to Movies on Demand is the limit of selection. They don’t have an endless supply of movies to choose from. However, if you would like to see a movie that is not on Movies on Demand, you only need to make the journey from your couch to your computer to visit Netflix. Netflix offers an almost infinite amount of movies for you to choose from and you can order your rentals online. Of course, the delivery process may take a couple of days, so you need to predict what movie you will have the urge to watch in a couple of days. It seems like there are downsides to both of these easy-order movie rental companies. Hey, it beats driving to the store! Doesn’t it?

I also wanted to bring up was the similarity between the movie rental company situation and the newspaper company situation discussed in class. In class, it was agreed that the shift from printed newspapers to online newspapers has both detrimental and beneficial effects. Printed newspapers use a lot of paper and ink and the reader must pay for them, while online newspapers do not waste paper or ink and many are free of charge. Also, online newspapers provide easier access to articles from past dates. However, printed newspapers have benefits, such as advertisements and comics. Unfortunately, advances on the internet are responsible for the struggles of old-fashioned newspapers, much in the same way that the internet is responsible for the struggles of old-fashioned movie rental stores.