tousled bird mad girl☆

ༀ. 24. Cardiff, UK. Astrophysics student. Proto mad scientist. INFP. Loves sushi, kratom, oxytocin, science fiction, nerdity, fire, piercings, interesting clothes, wine, avocados, video games, chilli, and real ale. Science and music are my life.

myspace visitor counter
Locations of visitors to this page

Drop whatever you’re doing and watch this. NASA has released videos shot from onboard the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters in the past, but you’ve never seen one prepared as masterfully as this.

For one thing, the footage was shot in high definition, so the image is exceptionally clear. But what puts this video head and shoulders above most other rocketcams is the sound. The audio has been remastered by the folks over at Skywalker Sound (yes, that Skywalker Sound), and the final product is nothing short of incredible.

article

A sampling of the good and bad of pens for lab notebooks The following pens seemed to perform well under the conditions I used: Pentel Hybrid Gel Roller, Sakura Gelly Roll (this company also makes Pigma Micron pens, which are great), Sanford Uni-Ball Gel RT, Sanford Uni-Ball Vision, Sanford Uni-Gel RT, Zebra Sarasa (this writes this best, and comes in a pleasing “blue/black” tint). I have a fondness for the Gelly Roll in part just because of the name, but they are becoming one of my favorites (I own probably 30 in various colors and ink types). Avoid the “Pilot G2″ line (they bled extensively in the organic solvents, and even bled when incubated with warm water). Do not use Sharpie (or equivalent) permanent markers for notebook entries: these markers were very good at resisting water spills, but were removed by many solvents. More importantly, permanent markers tend to bleed through to the underlying page, which makes for rather sloppy, illegible laboratory notebooks. Sharpie ink also fades over time, especially when used on plastic (like microfuge tubes or plastic plant stakes).  I’m not sure whether the fade is sublimation or interaction with some wavelength of light. Do not use pencils (e.g., like lead photo!). Although graphite is wonderfully resistant to many solvents, it is famously prone to being erased, which can be terrible if you erase something that, in fact, was rather important. Also, if you decide to patent a thought or protocol, you need to show the laboratory notebook to the patent office, and they will laugh their heads off if you show up with a pencil-filled notebook. Do not use fountain pens, which usually have water soluble inks that will be compromised from even minor beverage spills or rain (for those in the field). Also, if you fall asleep and drool on a page, you’re in trouble. Ball points, despite heated opinions to contrary by many researchers, are absolutely terrible at resisting most solvents and smears. If your mentor insists on ballpoints, snear knowingly. I didn’t test Crayons, unfortunately.  If you use them, just be sure to stay in between the lines. If you work at a nuclear power plant, at the International Space Station, or are constructing a dirty bomb, please be aware that radiation can affect ink.  For details, read this article (pdf). If you are a fountain pen addict like I am (see my favorite pen, if you’re curious), you can use your pen in the laboratory if you buy yourself Bulletproof Black ink fromNoodler’s. I haven’t tested it extensively, but it seems to be fabulous, and is actually guaranteed to be permanent until the End of Days. In my youth I used a Koh-I-Noor Rapidograph.  But I didn’t take care of it and it died.  But it was fantastic, and I feel bad about not including one in the above experiment.  Give it a try if you are at an art store and can afford it.  Also, Space Pens might work well, especially if you’re in orbit. More on how to keep an excellent lab notebook from Colin Purrington.

A sampling of the good and bad of pens for lab notebooks

  • The following pens seemed to perform well under the conditions I used: Pentel Hybrid Gel Roller, Sakura Gelly Roll (this company also makes Pigma Micron pens, which are great), Sanford Uni-Ball Gel RT, Sanford Uni-Ball Vision, Sanford Uni-Gel RT, Zebra Sarasa (this writes this best, and comes in a pleasing “blue/black” tint). I have a fondness for the Gelly Roll in part just because of the name, but they are becoming one of my favorites (I own probably 30 in various colors and ink types).
  • Avoid the “Pilot G2″ line (they bled extensively in the organic solvents, and even bled when incubated with warm water).
  • Do not use Sharpie (or equivalent) permanent markers for notebook entries: these markers were very good at resisting water spills, but were removed by many solvents. More importantly, permanent markers tend to bleed through to the underlying page, which makes for rather sloppy, illegible laboratory notebooks. Sharpie ink also fades over time, especially when used on plastic (like microfuge tubes or plastic plant stakes).  I’m not sure whether the fade is sublimation or interaction with some wavelength of light.
  • Do not use pencils (e.g., like lead photo!). Although graphite is wonderfully resistant to many solvents, it is famously prone to being erased, which can be terrible if you erase something that, in fact, was rather important. Also, if you decide to patent a thought or protocol, you need to show the laboratory notebook to the patent office, and they will laugh their heads off if you show up with a pencil-filled notebook.
  • Do not use fountain pens, which usually have water soluble inks that will be compromised from even minor beverage spills or rain (for those in the field). Also, if you fall asleep and drool on a page, you’re in trouble.
  • Ball points, despite heated opinions to contrary by many researchers, are absolutely terrible at resisting most solvents and smears. If your mentor insists on ballpoints, snear knowingly.
  • I didn’t test Crayons, unfortunately.  If you use them, just be sure to stay in between the lines.
  • If you work at a nuclear power plant, at the International Space Station, or are constructing a dirty bomb, please be aware that radiation can affect ink.  For details, read this article (pdf).
  • If you are a fountain pen addict like I am (see my favorite pen, if you’re curious), you can use your pen in the laboratory if you buy yourself Bulletproof Black ink fromNoodler’s. I haven’t tested it extensively, but it seems to be fabulous, and is actually guaranteed to be permanent until the End of Days.
  • In my youth I used a Koh-I-Noor Rapidograph.  But I didn’t take care of it and it died.  But it was fantastic, and I feel bad about not including one in the above experiment.  Give it a try if you are at an art store and can afford it.  Also, Space Pens might work well, especially if you’re in orbit.

More on how to keep an excellent lab notebook from Colin Purrington.

As seen on the National Geographic News like flowers soaking up sunlight, telescope dishes seem to turn their faces toward the starry sky in this image of ALMA observatory, located 5000 meters above sea level on Chajnantor plateau in the Chilean Andes. The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array or ALMA is known as one of the most complex astronomical projects on the ground. It will eventually consist of 66 antennas, each 12 or 7 meters wide, operating together as a single giant telescope. ALMA is a partnership of Europe, North America and East Asia in cooperation with Chile. In November 2011, the European Southern Observatory (ESO), one of the main partners of ALMA project, invited TWAN photographers to record the stunning night sky above Chajnantor plateau. The dark site’s rarefied atmosphere, at about 50 percent sea level pressure, is also extremely dry. That makes it ideal for ALMA which is designed to explore the universe at wavelengths over 1,000 times longer than visible light. This single-exposure image, looking toward the south, has captured stars in the constellations Carina and Vela. The cross-like star pattern near the top is known as the False Cross asterism, while the real Southern Cross rises over the dishes in the lower middle. Babak Tafreshi/Dreamview.net

As seen on the National Geographic News like flowers soaking up sunlight, telescope dishes seem to turn their faces toward the starry sky in this image of ALMA observatory, located 5000 meters above sea level on Chajnantor plateau in the Chilean Andes. The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array or ALMA is known as one of the most complex astronomical projects on the ground. It will eventually consist of 66 antennas, each 12 or 7 meters wide, operating together as a single giant telescope. ALMA is a partnership of Europe, North America and East Asia in cooperation with Chile. In November 2011, the European Southern Observatory (ESO), one of the main partners of ALMA project, invited TWAN photographers to record the stunning night sky above Chajnantor plateau. The dark site’s rarefied atmosphere, at about 50 percent sea level pressure, is also extremely dry. That makes it ideal for ALMA which is designed to explore the universe at wavelengths over 1,000 times longer than visible light. This single-exposure image, looking toward the south, has captured stars in the constellations Carina and Vela. The cross-like star pattern near the top is known as the False Cross asterism, while the real Southern Cross rises over the dishes in the lower middle. Babak Tafreshi/Dreamview.net

NGC 2264 is the designation number of the New General Catalogue that identifies two astronomical objects as a single object: ▪ the Cone Nebula, ▪ the Christmas Tree Cluster, Two other objects are within this designation but not officially included: ▪ Snowflake Cluster, ▪ and the Fox Fur Nebula. All of the objects are located in the Monoceros constellation and are located about 800 parsecs or 2600 light-years from Earth. NGC 2264 is sometimes referred to as the Christmas Tree Cluster and the Cone Nebula. However, the designation of NGC 2264 in the New General Catalogue refers to both objects and not the cluster alone.

NGC 2264 is the designation number of the New General Catalogue that identifies two astronomical objects as a single object:

▪ the Cone Nebula,

▪ the Christmas Tree Cluster,

Two other objects are within this designation but not officially included:

▪ Snowflake Cluster,

▪ and the Fox Fur Nebula.

All of the objects are located in the Monoceros constellation and are located about 800 parsecs or 2600 light-years from Earth.

NGC 2264 is sometimes referred to as the Christmas Tree Cluster and the Cone Nebula. However, the designation of NGC 2264 in the New General Catalogue refers to both objects and not the cluster alone.

This is just the maths which saved Apollo 13: That is to say, the most inspiring thing, ever. (And a note to all undergrads: When we bitch about having to get things done within the timespan of a few hours, saying it’s untrue to life - generally, it is. This is the situation where it isn’t. So, the next time you’re in labs scrambling to get your calculations done, or in an exam racing through a long derivation and checking your answers for accuracy in the last precious seconds, just pretend you’re saving Apollo 13.)

This is just the maths which saved Apollo 13: That is to say, the most inspiring thing, ever.

(And a note to all undergrads: When we bitch about having to get things done within the timespan of a few hours, saying it’s untrue to life - generally, it is.

This is the situation where it isn’t.

So, the next time you’re in labs scrambling to get your calculations done, or in an exam racing through a long derivation and checking your answers for accuracy in the last precious seconds, just pretend you’re saving Apollo 13.)

(via adistantfuture)

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter. Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of dark matter – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits. The issue can be appreciated by considering the Keplerian motion of the planets in our Solar System. Mercury orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 48 kilometers a second – while Neptune orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 5 kilometers a second. In the Solar System, a planet’s proximity to the substantial mass of the Sun is a function of its orbital velocity. So, hypothetically, if the Sun’s mass was reduced somehow, Neptune’s existing orbital velocity would move it outwards from its current orbit – potentially flinging it off into interstellar space if the change was significant enough. The physics of the Milky Way Galaxy is different from the Solar System, since its mass is distributed more evenly across the galactic disk, rather than 99% of its mass being concentrated centrally – the way it is in the Solar System. Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter. This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to dark matter at all. 

You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of  – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits.

The issue can be appreciated by considering the Keplerian motion of the planets in our Solar System. Mercury orbits the Sun at an  of 48 kilometers a second – while Neptune orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 5 kilometers a second. In the Solar System, a planet’s proximity to the substantial mass of the Sun is a function of its orbital velocity. So, hypothetically, if the Sun’s mass was reduced somehow, Neptune’s existing orbital velocity would move it outwards from its current orbit – potentially flinging it off into interstellar space if the change was significant enough.

The physics of the Milky Way Galaxy is different from the Solar System, since its mass is distributed more evenly across the galactic disk, rather than 99% of its mass being concentrated centrally – the way it is in the Solar System.

Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter.

This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to dark matter at all. 

(Source: sneakystratus)