astronomy, Experiments, Museums, Science Centres, science communication, Visits

Let’s Make A Comet

June 29, 2010 Tim Jones 1 Comment

Having unaccountably failed to spot comet McNaught on its recent visit, I was compensated last week by a meeting with this artificial comet created at the Griffith Observatory .

Demonstrator Grace is holding the tangible product of last Friday’s ‘Let’s Make A Comet’ event, held in the Griffith’s Leonard Nimoy Event Horizon Theatre. And I have to say, it was one of the best half hour’s worth of science communication I’ve seen.

I think the shear fun value had a lot to do with it. And although the show was geared to a young audience, there was no dumbing down of the science or talking down to the kids. Presentation style and jokes were witty rather than silly, patronising, or childish; and references to popular culture, like Harry Potter and the Transformers movie, were entertaining but topic-related. The professionalism of the two demonstrators / presenters really made the show, and it’s taking nothing away from the scientific knowledge and skills these guys have, to say they were genuine entertainers.

The comet was made by mixing together common substances containing the elements found in real comets. So that meant shaking up water, sand, carbon, and cleaning fluid (ammonia) together with dry-ice, or frozen CO2, in a plastic bag; the details are here on Griffith’s Teacher Resources page.

griffith — Griffith Observatory (Photo:Tim Jones)

I liked the hidden plan to pull an audience in on the promise of seeing a comet being made, then to educate them on broader themes and related topics; the practical demonstration happening only at the end of the session. There was nothing sinister in that though, and it all went down well with the bulk of the show taken up with a mix of talk, slides, videos and Q&A breaks. A lot of ground was covered, ranging from the chemical and physical requirements for life, to how the solar system is thought to have formed, and a pretty good introduction to astrobiology – including a discussion of extremophile life-forms.

Lecture theatre events are inevitably going to be a little one-way, but there was good engagement through the Q&As and frequent questions back to the audience. And it’s not like this was a public consultation on the risks of nanotechnology, the material being relatively uncontroversial.

Having the finished item available for inspection after the show was a big plus, and I’m sure the memory of it will for many people be a lasting anchor for the science they picked up.

astronomy, Experiments

Partial Lunar Eclipse 26th June 2010

June 26, 2010 Tim Jones 2 Comments

Here are the three pictures I got early this morning before cloud set in.

The last in the series was taken at 10:35 UTC, about an hour before greatest eclipse at 11:38 UTC – when more than 50% of the moon was in eclipse. Location – Los Angeles. I suspect the colour fringing in the last shot is a camera artifact, rather than an atmospheric refraction effect, as the frame is exposure enhanced (to counter a rapidly misting sky). :

astronomy, space

ISS Pass In Front of Moon

June 24, 2010 Tim Jones Leave a comment

Here’s a nice sequence of exposures showing the International Space Station passing in front of the moon. As seen from Los Angeles, 21.16 hrs on 23/06/10.

There’s no fixed interval between frames – just as fast as I could click, which is about 1 per second. Canon 30D 100-400 L zoom at 100mm. 0.6 seconds, f 7.1. 800 ASA.

Here’s an enhanced pic, just to bring out the stars in Scorpio, including red supergiant Antares at lower left. M4 and M80 are invisible in the flare there somewhere.

pass — ISS trajectory (credit:Heavens-above.com)

animals, Experiments, Fun, nature, Philosophy of Science, science communication

The Cricket Thermometer – Fact or Fiction?

June 23, 2010 Tim Jones 4 Comments

Can you tell the temperature from how fast crickets chirrup in the evening? Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so, according to this Tweet yesterday evening:

Sounds like a great idea, and as I’m in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains – cricket central by my standards – I’ve tested tested out the theory.

Dr Tyson is not the first person to suggest you can tell the temperature with a cricket, and he’s only having a bit of fun, so in the worst case he’ll be guilty of spreading, rather than generating, misleading information ;-).

Armed with a digital recorder and a laboratory thermometer, I quickly found a suitable subject. The temperature read 65 degrees Fahrenheit. This is what the chirruping sounded like:

Press the arrow key:

– Cricket at 65F, 20.40hrs

From this sample, using only my ears, I counted 67 chirps in a 15 second period (it’s tricky counting that fast, but I found I could do it by checking off groups of 8 chirps on my fingers). According to Dr Tyson’s formula, that gives a temperature of 67 plus 40 = 107 F; a whole 42 degrees above the actual temperature.

Why the difference?

We’re doing science here, which means there’s a whole load of stuff to check out before rushing to condemn Dr Tyson for inaccurate tweeting.

Was it indeed a cricket I was listening to? Sounded like one, but I didn’t actually see it.
Was Neil referring to a specific type of cricket, but the 140 Twitter limited the detail he could provide? If he’s missed out a division factor of 2 on the cricket count, that would put my number in the right ballpark.
Did I listen to the cricket long enough? Was it in a cricket warm-up or warm-down mode?
Was my thermometer broken? Ideally I’d have two or more to check, calibrated against a standard. But I don’t think it was the problem.
Could the cricket be hiding under someone’s air-conditioning unit outlet? This isn’t so far fetched actually. We have one in the house at the moment living under our fridge because it’s warm.
Was my sample large enough – both in terms of number of recordings and number of crickets? I did make four separate recordings and (for now take my word for it) they were pretty similar. That said, I should really come back over a number of evenings at different times to be sure – right?

Well, in the longer term the sample could get large, as I’ll probably be listening out for these things obsessively for the rest of my life now.

What is a chirp?

Meantime, I wondered if the explanation was down to the definition of a ‘chirp’. I convinced myself the chirps I had recorded might be doubling up; maybe something the cricket was doing with its legs: ‘chirp-chirp’, ‘chirp-chirp’, etc. – each ‘chirp-chirp’ counting as one ‘chirp’. Are these double chirps that Neil counted as single chirps? Was it an issue of resolution and my ears? To find out, I slowed the recording to 0.19 times its normal speed and re-recorded a sample to get this:

Press the arrow key to stream live:

and a waveform looking like this:

Cricket sound slowed down to x0.19 original

Interestingly, what you hear on the playback isn’t ‘chirp-chirp’ at all; but ‘chirp-chirp-chirp’. And it doesn’t help us, because each group of three sub-chirps only makes up a single one of our original chirps. And there is no indication of a slower beat or modulation that would yield a lower chirp count. My original estimate remember was 67, and if you count the groups on the expanded trace above you’ll find there are 13 in 15 seconds on the slowed down trace or, correcting for the factor of 0.19, gives us 68.4. Virtually where I started. The cricket still says it’s 107F when it’s only 65F. (BTW – you can also hear another animal making an even faster noise in the background.)

Conclusion

In conclusion, accepting all the experimental limitations and caveats listed above, this test alone does not inspire confidence in the formula, and hence, the value of the tweet.

But hey, on the bright side we’ve all learned some possibly quite useless information about crickets, plus, more importantly, something of the pitfalls to watch out for in chronological cricket research (or any research for that matter).

biology, Botany, Chemistry, education, Experiments, Fun

Unlikely Ink?

June 21, 2010 Tim Jones Leave a comment

A good few Zoonomian posts are based on things or events I just happen to stumble onto. And that’s certainly the case with these oak galls I snapped on a trail walk this week.

These hard woody growths, about 1.5 inches across, are induced by insects interfering with the oak plant’s bio-chemistry.

Typically a wasp, like Neuroterus albipes in the photo, lays an egg on an oak twig, along with chemicals that react with the plant’s hormones to trigger growth of the gall, making both a home and ready meal for the wasp grub. On occasion, secondary parasites of other species may join the ‘host’ grub after the gall has formed. It looks from the multiple holes like that’s what’s happened here.

Historically, oak galls have been useful to humans as a main ingredient of Iron Gall Ink, in common use from before the middle ages to Victorian times. I made iron gall ink as a kid, which probably explains why I got so excited when I saw these. And while I’ll concede the skill is probably not a 21st century essential, making the stuff is quite satisfying.

So if you’re up for a little kitchen science, you will need: a handful of oak galls, some ferrous sulphate and, optionally if you want the ink to have a good consistency, some Gum Arabic.

The chemistry begins when the crushed galls are mixed with water, causing the tannin, or gallo-tannic acid COOH.C₆H₂(OH)₂O.COC₆H₂(OH)₃ in them to form gallic acid C₆(COOH)H(OH)₃H. Adding hydrated ferrous sulphate FeSO₄, 7 H₂O to this forms the ink, a soluble ferrous tannate complex.

As regards procedure, you should get a workable product by smashing up 5 or 6 oak galls and boiling them down to about a 1/4 pint in water and filtering the liquid through a cloth or handkerchief; then dissolve about a teaspoon of ferrous sulphate in a shot-glass sized measure, and mix the two together. Instant medieval ink. For a much more thorough and professional approach, see this article from the Conservation Division of the Library of Congress. BTW – ferrous sulphate can be bought in art shops, garden supply stores, and some health stores – you want iron(II)sulphate, FeSO4 – not anything else.

Iron(II)-sulfate-heptahydrate-samplesmall — Ferrous Sulphate (Wikicommons)

The advantage iron gall ink brought over previous inks was its permanence. Because ferrous tannate is water soluble, the ink soaks into the paper, where the ferrous tannate oxidises to insoluble – and darker – ferric tannate, which is now trapped in the fabric of the paper. Various refinements are seen in recipes, such as the addition of extra acid, maybe as vinegar, to keep the ink from oxidising in the pot, as it were. A drawback of iron gall inks is their corrosive action, sometimes only apparent over a long period, and in extreme cases resulting in writing literally dropping out of the paper.

Despite the corrosion issues, many famous documents were written in iron gall ink, including the dead sea scrolls (the black ink that is; the red ink is cinnabar, or mercuric sulphide HgS), and the Constitution of the United States.

Psalms_Scroll — The Dead Sea Scrolls are written in iron gall ink (Wikicommons)

animals, biology, conservation, Museums, nature, Science Centres, Visits

A Bone to Pick with Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

June 14, 2010 Tim Jones Leave a comment

Before heading back to LA from Santa Barbara last week, Erin and I made a final stop at the local natural history museum. I’ve blogged before about how great this place is. Not the largest of museums, but somehow managing to cover all the traditional departments through locally themed exhibits – and all in the most beautiful location.

whale skull at santa barbara museum of natural history — Whale skull at Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, June 2010 (Photo:Tim Jones)

In the 18 months since our last visit, two new exhibitions have appeared, and the bird gallery has reopened following renovation. But to our surprise, all that is left of the museum’s flagship exhibit – a 72ft Blue Whale skeleton – is it’s head.

whale skeleton santa barbara museum of natural history — The complete whale skeleton in 2008 (Photo:Tim Jones)

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History — Nice spot..... (Photo:Tim Jones)

For the 20 year old skeleton, one of only five on display in the USA, is in need of a major overhaul. The skull will be completely replaced, and the remaining bones will be refurbished or replaced.

The $500,000 needed to complete the work is being raised by inviting donors to sponsor individual bones and sections of the skeleton through the ‘Buy-A-Bone’ scheme (links to the Museum’s website).

The right to name this particular Balaenoptera musculus has already gone – for a cool $100k. But the skull and vertebral column are still up for grabs at $75k and $137k respectively; most of the ribs are available at $25k each, the left flipper at $13k, or one of twelve carpal bones can be yours for the pocket money sum of $500.

So go ahead – pick your bone!

astronomy, biology, Botany, events, Visits

A Bit of a Stink at The Huntington

June 7, 2010 Tim Jones 4 Comments

I’ve always thought I’ll someday meet a celebrity if I visit Los Angeles often enough; I just didn’t expect it would be a plant.

Meet Amorphophallus titanum, or Titan Arum, or ‘Corpse Flower’, or simply ‘Big Stinky’ to it’s friends at the Huntington Botanical Gardens in Pasadena.

The deal with Stinky, one of the largest and smelliest flowers you’re ever likely meet, is that most of the time it keeps that outer petal-like spathe tightly closed around its central spadix. Only on rare occasions, often with years between events, does the flower open up for a very short time, simultaneously attracting pollinating insects inside with a disgusting (to us) odour – hence ‘Corpse Flower’.

We’ve been following the plant’s progress on this Huntington blog, in a bid to time our visit to coincide with its opened, smelly, best. As it turned out, having heard on Saturday it was blooming, we drove over today, Sunday, only to find it had closed up again; job done apparently: bad smells, insects, the lot.

Luckily, while I enjoy a bit of botany now and then, I’m not obsessive about it, so won’t be falling on my trowel any time soon. But for some, I get the feeling it’s like an astronomer missing an eclipse or a transit of Venus.

You can see the plant wasn’t totally closed up (see the Huntington website for the plant in bloom) and we did get a sniff of a collected sample of it’s insect-attractant discharge; not pleasant, but I wouldn’t like to comment on its corpseiness.

So, an interesting diversion all the same. And a good job by the Huntington marketing team; I’m sure they give Stinky a big hug when no-one’s looking.

Moving on from smelly plants now. This was the first time I’d visited the Huntington since the Dibner Hall of the History of Science was opened in late 2008. The permanent exhibition, Beautiful Science, is wonderful, and you’ll find that doubly so if you like rare old books covering subjects ranging from astronomy to natural history to medicine and light.

Newton’s own copy of Optiks is here – how’d they get that? And I liked the accurate reproductions of Galileo’s telescope that visitors can use to spy a simulated moon across the hall – moving their eye around to find the exit pupil like Galileo must have done; and Hooke’s microscope, with a genuine flea like the one Hooke so painstakingly drew in Micrographia. There is even an original 18th century volume from Diderot’s Encyclopedie that the public can (carefully) leaf through. Nice trusting touch.

All in all, the Huntington: comprising library, art collections, and botanical gardens, is well worth a visit.

Architecture, Art, Museums, technology, Visits

They don’t build them like this anymore: The Gamble House

June 5, 2010 Tim Jones 3 Comments

I’ve just taken a tour of the Gamble House – probably THE icon of American Arts & Crafts architecture.

Designed and built as David Gamble’s (of Proctor & Gamble fame) winter retreat, this 1908 Charles and Henry Greene designed house in Pasadena is well worth a visit, for both it’s artistic and technological appeal. No interior photography allowed, but here are some pics of the elegant joinery and fastening methods.

Construction is almost entirely in wood, with beautifully simple woodworking joints: lots of scarfs, laps, mortis and tenon (fingers), and pegs.

Our guide, however, put paid to the popular myth that the house is entirely without nails or screws. Brass screws are used in the staircase for example, but cleverly hidden behind mahogany plugs (the tasteful predecessor of those cheap plastic caps that come with IKEA self-assemble furniture).

Scarf joint in the Gamble House (Photo:Tim Jones)

You’d also never guess that inside the supporting pillars are steel inserts that extend into the foundations; one of the first implementations of anti-earthquake measures.

Mortise and tenon joint, with pegs; in Gamble House (Photo:Tim Jones)

In 1908, the house cost $80,000 – roughly ten times the norm for a similar sized property – and took 20 people about a year to build. It looks it.

Photos: Tim Jones and Erin Conel Jones

animals, biology, nature

California Anisoptera (California Dragonflies)

June 4, 2010 Tim Jones Leave a comment

Just a few photos of dragonflies taken in and around the San Gabriel foothills. There are three individuals here: the first golden-colored guy was taken in the hills; the other two were buzzing round a pond in Pasadena. I believe the red colored one is a Flame Skimmer or Libellula saturata, the blue one is a Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis, and I’m still working on the first guy.

Photos: copyright Tim Jones

Art, conservation, education, events, Museums, Philosophy of Science, sciart, science communication

Science and Art at the Getty

June 2, 2010 Tim Jones Leave a comment

It’s turning into quite an artsy fortnight. On Thursday, I went to see Getty CEO Jim Wood interviewed at Caltech, then a visit with dinner at the Getty Center itself on Saturday night, before on Monday taking my chances with the holiday crowds at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA). Between times I’ve been viewing some wonderful examples of Arts & Crafts era houses in Pasadena, and learning about the origins of Californian en plein air outdoor painting. A few notes on the Caltech event…..

The Getty Center, Los Angeles (Photo:Tim Jones)

‘Science and Art’ featured J.Paul Getty Trust President and CEO Jim Wood talking with broadcaster Madeleine Brand.

Despite the wide-open title, the conversation focused on the Getty’s expertise in artifact conservation, and an upcoming series of region-wide exhibitions intended to show how post-WWII Californian art was influenced by the science and technology of the period.

Wood began by describing the full extent of the Getty’s capabilities beyond the public face of the Museum, and how its scientists have developed conservation techniques that are deployed on conservation projects around the world. These range from the restoration of flood-damaged panels in Florence to the recovery of poorly preserved mosaics in Damascus.

The upcoming exhibition series will feature artists from Los Angeles, and cover the 1945-1980 period of rapid industrial development and space exploration. Californian artists in particular stayed close to technological developments at this time, and incorporated emerging new materials and techniques into their art. The period is coincident with the Cold War, so it will be interesting to watch for any cultural references in that direction (I’m thinking of the type of arts exhibits from the USA featured in the Victoria & Albert Museum’s Cold War Modern exhibition last year).

The Q&A kicked off refreshingly backwards with Jim Wood suggesting it’s important to understand the differences between art and science. He takes the view that science deals with progress – it moves towards a goal; but art – while evolving, doesn’t do that; it’s less about facts than ideas. All in all though, despite Wood’s best efforts, these forays into more philosophical territory didn’t really get picked up on by the interviewer or the audience; something of a missed opportunity I felt.

Getty Center Restaurant (Photo:Tim Jones)

There was an interesting question to Wood on the role of art as a tool to explain difficult scientific concepts; had such art been produced, and should it be preserved? Making a distinction between illustrative and creative art, Wood suggested scientifically illustrative works were likely to be valued; but more for their documentary than artistic qualities. For me, the role of illustrative art is undeniable – look at the depictions of cosmological concepts in popular physics books. The role for creative art in science communication is more ambiguous. It can tell us about prevailing cultural attitudes towards science and technology – back to the Cold War again, consider those swirling atoms and mushroom cloud depictions of atomic power. But it’s less obvious – to me at least – how an abstract artistic aesthetic might translate into, or inform, science.

Getty Center (Photo:Tim Jones)

Wood was asked how we decide when it is right to return an artifact fully to it’s original state – as the conservator’s toolkit gets ever more impressive? It seems there are some difficult calls, but it’s more usual to conserve than restore.

That brought to mind a whole area of science-art interaction that the evening hadn’t touched upon: the use of technology for artifact simulation and display, whereby an original piece is presented next to a simulation of how the item would have originally appeared. I’m thinking here of Roman and Greek statues in their original livery, the brightly painted interiors of Catholic cathedrals, and projection techniques that bring faded tapestries – however temporarily – back to life. I digress; but for more on the topic, here’s a nice piece on statuary, ‘Gods in Color’, from the Boston Globe.

Anyway, that was a very brief update on my brush with science and art at Caltech and the Getty.

Incidentally, one important feature of the Getty Center that Wood didn’t mention is its restaurant, commendable as much for its location as the food. Perched high overlooking the Los Angeles basin towards the ocean, the views are an inspiration to artist and scientist alike.

Communicate Science

Yearly Archives: 2010