Improv everywhere is a comedic performance art group in New York City who pulls non-threatening pranks. They do all sorts of things from having over 160 people "forget" to wear their pants while riding the subway, or having over 200 people freeze in grand central station for 5 minutes. The freeze video has been a huge youtube hit, however i saw this video and i beleive it makes more of an artistic and satirical statement than a "haha look at us" statement.
The target of improv everywhere is the ambercrombie & fitch store on 5th avenue. The apparent reason is because of the shirtless model, the photos of shirtless men, the paintings of shirtless men, and a bronze statue of a shirtless man all in the store. After a little research the leader of improv everywhere Charlie Todd found out it was not illegal to take off your shirt in public in New York, so devised this sinister plan. The plan was the brutality of the average.
All of the men were in no way models, they were average, imperfect, unlike the models, or the photos of models, or the paintings of models, or the sculptures of models in the store. The plan was simple, walk around shirtless and act as if they were shopping, fully clothed.
but what awaits is the ultimate question, is this art? I say yes, it is making a satirical statement, mocking a clothing corporations image of the ideal man. These men are expressing their opinion of what they think of abercrombie's ideal man. They do it in a comedic harmless matter.
This is more of an abstract artistic statement but it is clearly there. But Todd used shirtless men as a medium to create his piece, it may be too abstract for some to see, but this is clearly an artistic statement, and in my mind and Todd's mind, clearly art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeBp8J0rqs
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Military Grade Spray Bandages
The Center for Military Biomaterials Research (CeMBR) which is part of the New Jersey Center for Biomaterials at Rutgers University has developed literally a spray bandage, it was and still is intended for military use, a dual syringe system that has two plymers that when they are mixed they react rapidly and form a gel "dressing" that supposedly "conforms to the geometry of the wound and adheres to intact skin but not the injured tissue" it also resists abrasian.
So in layman's terms this company called Bio Cure Inc has developed a spray that does more than traditional gauze bandages, to be used for military first aid, it was meant to be so easy that a soldier could treat themselves if they needed to. There has also been talk about civilian uses in the future. This idea has been in the works for some time now, it has just recently been approved by the Food and Drug Adminitration.
But wait there's more! Supposedly Bio Cure has been talking about medicated versions of the spray to fight off infection and to stop severe bleeding form lacerations. This is a huge leap forward in the world of medicine. This will exponentially help burn victims. And when used on the front lines it will save soldiers lives, especially because it can be administered by the wounded, so if someone was stranded and bleeding out, if they had this spray, they would be alright if the wound wasn't too severe.
There has been no talk of when this magical spray will be available to the public, nor has there been any discussion of how much it will cost, or relative availability. I could not find what these two polymers were made of. There can only be speculation about when us civilian common folk will be able to see this, it is certain that it will not be for a few years.
Joachim Kohn is a principal investigator of CeMBR and the Board of Governers Professor of Chemistry at Rutgers University, he said the collaborated work between the military, Bio Cure, and Rutgers to get it to pass the FDA approval took about three and a half years.
All we know is that when this becomes availible to the public, it will forever change medicine, it has been speculated that the gel can be used to treat diabetic ulcers, ostomies, and post-operation wounds. More or less the sky is the limit with this gel solution, it certainly will revolutionize first aid care and medicine as we know it.
Adult Stem Cell Discovery
Matt Kavanagh
Scientific Revolutions
Core 210-10
Stem Cell Discovery
LINKS
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091018141615.htm
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
Early Monday morning, on the 19th of October 2009, ScienceDaily.com reported great progress on the efficiency of stem cells from adult tissue, as opposed to that of the controversial embryonic stem cells.
A science team from The Scripps Research Institute recently developed a way of creating stem cells from human adult tissue, without the use of any embryonic cells whatsoever.
The new method they discovered uses three tiny drug-like chemicals and has proven to be 200 times more efficient and twice as fast turning human cells into stem cells.
“Both in terms of speed and efficiency, we achieved major improvements over conventional conditions. This is the first example in human cells of how reprogramming speed can be accelerated. I believe that the field will quickly adopt this method, accelerating iPS cell (induced plurpotent stem cells) research significantly,” said Scripps Research Associate Professor Sheng Ding, Ph. D., also known as the man leading the study.
The team ran into two big problems along the way, preventing progress to be made to bring forth the day when stem cells can be used. First was that two of the chemicals that are used are proven cancer-causing genes (c0Myc and Oct4) must be made completely safe to avoid genetic manipulation. The second problem was that they needed to make for a more efficient process as the current success rate was one in about 10,000 cells would turn out to be a usable stem cell, of which took approximately four weeks from start to finish. This information on the creation of human stem cells was released in December of 2007, and from there on out Ding and his team worked hard to figure out how to fix the problems.
The first problem regarding safety was solved earlier this year when the researchers found out they could use purified proteins to reduce the adult cells back to a state similar to embryonic cells, which are more capable of acting as scientist hope stem cells can be used in the future, which will be explained later.
To cure the efficiency problem, Ding and his team tested many, many drug-like molecules, looking for TGFb (transforming growth factor beta) and MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase). When they found the most active compounds, they looked to see how this could help improve the efficiency of the stem cell creation.
The science team found that the chemicals ALK5 inhibitor SB43142 and MEK inhibitor PD0325901 used together is extremely successful in transforming the adult cells into stem cells. The use of these two chemicals boosted the process speed 100 times faster than the former genetic method.
However, Ding thought he could do better and he was right. Using a compound known as Thiazovivin with the two other chemicals, the speed improved to 200 times faster than the genetic method, and the completion time also got better, rather than it taking four weeks to create the stem cells, it only takes two.
Also worth noting is Ding’s emphasis that this new method, while fast, is also safe as the process is based on natural biological processes, and the substances used in creating the new and improved, faster and safer stem cell transformation have been tested in humans.
So what qualifies a proper stem cell that can be used for transplant?
• Ability to create significant amount of tissue
• Transform into desired cell type
• Survive in the patient after being introduced into their body
• Adapt/ integrate into surrounding tissue after transplant
• Function as expected for the recipients life time
• Doesn’t harm recipient
For those that don’t know, stem cells have the ability to transform themselves into many different types of cells such as muscle cells, red blood cells, or even brain cells. They also have the remarkable ability to divide and either remain a stem cell, or adapt into another type of cell, of which they will then work to repair the bodily damage brought on by disease or injuries.
The list of problems stem cells can fix is quite impressive to say the least, but what is really miraculous is that scientists will be able to use the stem cells to test new drugs and medicines, which could potentially lead to even more curing discoveries. What is known about stem cells is that they can transform into different cells which means they can be used to replace damaged cells in order to treat countless health problems such as Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, forms of arthritis, cancer, and even birth defects, etc. The length of which stem cells can be used is unknown.
As we’ve discussed in class, new science is built on old science/discoveries. It must be understood that stem cell research began in the early 80’s, and it’s over time that improvements have led Ding and his colleagues to develop this great achievement in adult stem cell research.
In conclusion, to discuss my feelings on why this is an important scientific finding almost feels like I wasted the last two pages explaining how this new method is far superior to the ways of the past. Clearly, it’s a huge step in the right direction as the safety and efficiency of stem cells has been improved so drastically by Ding and his team that it would take a very distant person to downplay the significance of these discoveries. Ding’s accomplishments greatly advance the study of adult stem cells.
The impact this will have on our world will be huge. When summing up what stem cells are capable of doing, that is transforming to heal the body in many ways that no other things can sometimes do, it’s impossible not to believe that the day stem cells are ready for human use, the world will change as diseases, injuries, health conditions, and body conditions suffered by people throughout the world will have the best possible chance to be cured. It’s the medicine of all medicine.
Sources Used
Scripps Research Institute. "Major Step In Making Better Stem Cells From Adult Tissue." ScienceDaily 19 October 2009. 19 October 2009.
"What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before these potential uses will be realized? [Stem Cell Information]." NIH Stem Cell Information Home Page. Web. 19 Oct. 2009..
Scientific Revolutions
Core 210-10
Stem Cell Discovery
LINKS
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091018141615.htm
http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp
Early Monday morning, on the 19th of October 2009, ScienceDaily.com reported great progress on the efficiency of stem cells from adult tissue, as opposed to that of the controversial embryonic stem cells.
A science team from The Scripps Research Institute recently developed a way of creating stem cells from human adult tissue, without the use of any embryonic cells whatsoever.
The new method they discovered uses three tiny drug-like chemicals and has proven to be 200 times more efficient and twice as fast turning human cells into stem cells.
“Both in terms of speed and efficiency, we achieved major improvements over conventional conditions. This is the first example in human cells of how reprogramming speed can be accelerated. I believe that the field will quickly adopt this method, accelerating iPS cell (induced plurpotent stem cells) research significantly,” said Scripps Research Associate Professor Sheng Ding, Ph. D., also known as the man leading the study.
The team ran into two big problems along the way, preventing progress to be made to bring forth the day when stem cells can be used. First was that two of the chemicals that are used are proven cancer-causing genes (c0Myc and Oct4) must be made completely safe to avoid genetic manipulation. The second problem was that they needed to make for a more efficient process as the current success rate was one in about 10,000 cells would turn out to be a usable stem cell, of which took approximately four weeks from start to finish. This information on the creation of human stem cells was released in December of 2007, and from there on out Ding and his team worked hard to figure out how to fix the problems.
The first problem regarding safety was solved earlier this year when the researchers found out they could use purified proteins to reduce the adult cells back to a state similar to embryonic cells, which are more capable of acting as scientist hope stem cells can be used in the future, which will be explained later.
To cure the efficiency problem, Ding and his team tested many, many drug-like molecules, looking for TGFb (transforming growth factor beta) and MEK (mitogen-activated protein kinase). When they found the most active compounds, they looked to see how this could help improve the efficiency of the stem cell creation.
The science team found that the chemicals ALK5 inhibitor SB43142 and MEK inhibitor PD0325901 used together is extremely successful in transforming the adult cells into stem cells. The use of these two chemicals boosted the process speed 100 times faster than the former genetic method.
However, Ding thought he could do better and he was right. Using a compound known as Thiazovivin with the two other chemicals, the speed improved to 200 times faster than the genetic method, and the completion time also got better, rather than it taking four weeks to create the stem cells, it only takes two.
Also worth noting is Ding’s emphasis that this new method, while fast, is also safe as the process is based on natural biological processes, and the substances used in creating the new and improved, faster and safer stem cell transformation have been tested in humans.
So what qualifies a proper stem cell that can be used for transplant?
• Ability to create significant amount of tissue
• Transform into desired cell type
• Survive in the patient after being introduced into their body
• Adapt/ integrate into surrounding tissue after transplant
• Function as expected for the recipients life time
• Doesn’t harm recipient
For those that don’t know, stem cells have the ability to transform themselves into many different types of cells such as muscle cells, red blood cells, or even brain cells. They also have the remarkable ability to divide and either remain a stem cell, or adapt into another type of cell, of which they will then work to repair the bodily damage brought on by disease or injuries.
The list of problems stem cells can fix is quite impressive to say the least, but what is really miraculous is that scientists will be able to use the stem cells to test new drugs and medicines, which could potentially lead to even more curing discoveries. What is known about stem cells is that they can transform into different cells which means they can be used to replace damaged cells in order to treat countless health problems such as Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, forms of arthritis, cancer, and even birth defects, etc. The length of which stem cells can be used is unknown.
As we’ve discussed in class, new science is built on old science/discoveries. It must be understood that stem cell research began in the early 80’s, and it’s over time that improvements have led Ding and his colleagues to develop this great achievement in adult stem cell research.
In conclusion, to discuss my feelings on why this is an important scientific finding almost feels like I wasted the last two pages explaining how this new method is far superior to the ways of the past. Clearly, it’s a huge step in the right direction as the safety and efficiency of stem cells has been improved so drastically by Ding and his team that it would take a very distant person to downplay the significance of these discoveries. Ding’s accomplishments greatly advance the study of adult stem cells.
The impact this will have on our world will be huge. When summing up what stem cells are capable of doing, that is transforming to heal the body in many ways that no other things can sometimes do, it’s impossible not to believe that the day stem cells are ready for human use, the world will change as diseases, injuries, health conditions, and body conditions suffered by people throughout the world will have the best possible chance to be cured. It’s the medicine of all medicine.
Sources Used
Scripps Research Institute. "Major Step In Making Better Stem Cells From Adult Tissue." ScienceDaily 19 October 2009. 19 October 2009
"What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before these potential uses will be realized? [Stem Cell Information]." NIH Stem Cell Information Home Page. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Volcanoes!
Links to the work:
http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume1/issue2/story2.php
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/11/26_bubbles.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/nature02138.html
Researchers affiliated with the University of California Berkeley have created experiments that further human knowledge of volcanoes, and provide insight on how and why volcanoes explode. A consistent contributor to this project is UC Berkeley professor of Earth and Planetary Science, Michael Manga. Manga has an impressive educational background. He received his B.S. in geophysics at McGill, his S.M. in engineering sciences from Harvard, and his Ph.D. in earth and planetary sciences from Harvard as well. He has been a professor at UC Berkeley since fall of 2001. His work on volcano theories began with a graduate student named Helge Gonnermann. Together, they came up with a theory about why volcanoes sometimes viciously erupt, while other times the eruption is a slow ooze. I found their hypothesis from ScienceMatters@Berkeley, and it was also published in the journal, Nature. The article is Volume 1, Issue 2 in ScienceMatters@Berkeley, which was published on February 13, 2006. There was also a press release a few years earlier about this topic on UC Berkeley news. The press release was published on November 26, 2003. Manga and Gonnermann’s written hypothesis was received by Nature on May 19, 2003, and was accepted November 15, 2003.
Before I talk about any theories, let’s recap the elementary explanation about volcanic explosions. Inside a volcano is liquid magma. The liquid magma rises from the magma chamber located several miles down. In the volcano, dissolved gasses form bubbles. These bubbles grow because of increasing pressure. The magma pressure decreases while it rises. The bubbles then grow, which makes the volume of the magma increase, so then it rises faster. The loss of dissolved gas (which are now bubbles) make it harder for the magma to flow, so the probability that it will break is much higher. The pressure accelerates until the magma finally fragments and explosion occurs. It’s like a shaken soda. When a large volume of gas in bubble form (like the carbon dioxide in soda) releases, it blasts from the top (like a soda would explode when opened).
Predecessors to Manga and Gonnermann’s believed that explosive eruptions of volcanoes were simply caused by fragmentation (breaks). Fragmentation releases the gas bubbles which are trapped in the liquid. In a volcano, magma fragments as it rises to the surface. The pressure of escaping gas breaks the magma and blows it out, just like champagne escapes when the cork is released (Manga). Manga and Gonnermann challenged this idea, saying that fragmentation is definitely a huge part in volcanic eruptions, but not the only cause. In fact, their new theory said that fragmentation occurs in almost all volcanic eruptions. They believe that magma is always fragmenting while it surfaces, but when gas is steadily escaping the pressure is not enough to cause an explosion.
Manga and Gonnermann have explanations for both explosive (violent), and effusive (oozing) eruptions. For explosive eruptions, magma rises fast. Since the magma is rising at a rapid rate, the gas pressure increases, and bubbles grow at a higher rate. The magma cannot keep up with the growing rate of bubbles, so it can’t continuously release pressure. This pressure causes the magma to fragment quickly and there is an explosive release of the gas pressure.
Effusive eruptions, according to Manga and Gonnermann, constantly fragment while the magma rises to the surface. The constant fragmenting breaks the gas bubbles and releases a lot of gas before the magma even reaches the surface. Once the magma reaches the surface, there is little pressure, or bubbles left; therefore, there is no explosion.
To put the two different kinds of eruptions into perspective Manga gave a good, real-life example that makes the theory clear. "Silly Putty is the same way - it deforms smoothly if you pull slowly, but it breaks if you pull quickly." When magma is evenly stretched, at a slower rate, releasing gas along the way, an explosion won’t occur. However, if the gas bubbles are increasingly putting pressure on the magma, it cannot keep up and will suddenly break, causing an explosion.
Manga and Gonnermann came up with their theory that fragmentation is universal because of their studies on California’s Big Glass Mountain Volcano. There were multi-colored bands on the rocks that they studied. “The bands, which contain different concentrations of microcrystals of the mineral pyroxene, are created by shear forces as the magma rises under the volcano and as it flows on the surface” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley).
From their joint hypothesis, Manga started doing funded research by the National Science Foundation and the Sloan Foundation with post-doctoral researcher, Atsuko Namiki. This pair of researchers do experiments with an “in lab volcano simulator” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley). Their work it to try to test their theories about magma fragmentation, and specifically the fascination on how and why magma fragments. Using a corn-syrup type liquid they use their machine to test fragmentation with pressure change. In their volcano simulator they have a camera which “captures 2,000 frames per second, enabling the researchers to analyze the liquid fragmentation” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley). Manga explaines, "these kinds of experiments help us predict whether something like a big landslide at Mount Saint Helens, for example, would change the pressure enough to cause an explosive eruption."
Elementary schools have to find fascinating topics to keep children engaged in learning. Things like mummies, sharks, and volcanoes typically spark children’s interests, as well as mine. Ten years later, I still find myself reading the news about new discoveries on these topics. When I was looking for a “present meaningful scientific contribution to human knowledge” I decided to take a look at the source Professor Wade provided. I looked through a few issues of science related topics to find one that I could not only partially understand, but one that also sparked my interest. I came across an article called, “An Explosive Theory About Volcanoes” by David Pescovitz. I don’t know if I have spent too many hours thinking about journalism class, but the headline caught my attention because of the play on words. Also, I figured it was time that I update myself on this type of science I had once found fascinating in the fifth grade.
The impact this will have on the world is that these theories and experiments may lead to one day being able to predict when a volcano will erupt, and whether it will explode or effuse. Also, this research will help determine other natural contributions to the eruption of volcanoes, like previously stated, landslides.
I definitely think that this is science, because volcanoes are a part of nature, because they are not manmade, and nature is science. Science, as defined by Merriam Webster is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” Based on that definition, this study of volcanoes is science. The researchers are gaining knowledge about volcanoes, and are proving truths about them. Also, they are studying the general laws of how volcanoes work, while discovering new ones. The laws Manga and Namiki are trying to define are tested through scientific method, their volcano simulator.
This connects with what we have been learning in class, especially with Fancis Bacon’s optimism towards knowledge and his book Instauratio Magna. There is a quote from the bible from the Book of David that states, “ Many shall pass to and fo, and science shall be increased (Shapin 20). This applies to the new knowledge about volcanoes because there is a continuous need to know more about them. There have been many scientists before Manga, Gonnermann, and Namiki, but their knowledge has helped the three understand what they do now. There will also be people after them who will continue to find new discoveries.
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 16 Oct. 2009.
Manga, Michael, and Helge Gonnermann. "Explosive volcanism may not be an inevitable consequence of magma fragmentation." Nature (2003). Nature: International Weekly Journal Of Science. 15 Nov. 2003. Web. 12 Oct. 2009..
Pescovitz, David. "An Explosive Theory About Volcanoes." ScienceMatters@Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley, 13 Feb. 2006. Web. 12 Oct. 2009..
Sanders, Robert. "What makes volcanoes explode? It's the bubbles." UC Berkeley News. University of California, Berkeley, 26 Nov. 2003. Web. 12 Oct. 2009..
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revoltuion. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1998. Print.
"Volcano Facts, Volcano Information, Volcano Videos, Volcano Photos - National Geographic." Environment Facts, Environment Science, Global Warming, Natural Disasters, Ecosystems, Green Living - National Geographic. Web. 17 Oct. 2009..
http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume1/issue2/story2.php
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/11/26_bubbles.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/nature02138.html
Researchers affiliated with the University of California Berkeley have created experiments that further human knowledge of volcanoes, and provide insight on how and why volcanoes explode. A consistent contributor to this project is UC Berkeley professor of Earth and Planetary Science, Michael Manga. Manga has an impressive educational background. He received his B.S. in geophysics at McGill, his S.M. in engineering sciences from Harvard, and his Ph.D. in earth and planetary sciences from Harvard as well. He has been a professor at UC Berkeley since fall of 2001. His work on volcano theories began with a graduate student named Helge Gonnermann. Together, they came up with a theory about why volcanoes sometimes viciously erupt, while other times the eruption is a slow ooze. I found their hypothesis from ScienceMatters@Berkeley, and it was also published in the journal, Nature. The article is Volume 1, Issue 2 in ScienceMatters@Berkeley, which was published on February 13, 2006. There was also a press release a few years earlier about this topic on UC Berkeley news. The press release was published on November 26, 2003. Manga and Gonnermann’s written hypothesis was received by Nature on May 19, 2003, and was accepted November 15, 2003.
Before I talk about any theories, let’s recap the elementary explanation about volcanic explosions. Inside a volcano is liquid magma. The liquid magma rises from the magma chamber located several miles down. In the volcano, dissolved gasses form bubbles. These bubbles grow because of increasing pressure. The magma pressure decreases while it rises. The bubbles then grow, which makes the volume of the magma increase, so then it rises faster. The loss of dissolved gas (which are now bubbles) make it harder for the magma to flow, so the probability that it will break is much higher. The pressure accelerates until the magma finally fragments and explosion occurs. It’s like a shaken soda. When a large volume of gas in bubble form (like the carbon dioxide in soda) releases, it blasts from the top (like a soda would explode when opened).
Predecessors to Manga and Gonnermann’s believed that explosive eruptions of volcanoes were simply caused by fragmentation (breaks). Fragmentation releases the gas bubbles which are trapped in the liquid. In a volcano, magma fragments as it rises to the surface. The pressure of escaping gas breaks the magma and blows it out, just like champagne escapes when the cork is released (Manga). Manga and Gonnermann challenged this idea, saying that fragmentation is definitely a huge part in volcanic eruptions, but not the only cause. In fact, their new theory said that fragmentation occurs in almost all volcanic eruptions. They believe that magma is always fragmenting while it surfaces, but when gas is steadily escaping the pressure is not enough to cause an explosion.
Manga and Gonnermann have explanations for both explosive (violent), and effusive (oozing) eruptions. For explosive eruptions, magma rises fast. Since the magma is rising at a rapid rate, the gas pressure increases, and bubbles grow at a higher rate. The magma cannot keep up with the growing rate of bubbles, so it can’t continuously release pressure. This pressure causes the magma to fragment quickly and there is an explosive release of the gas pressure.
Effusive eruptions, according to Manga and Gonnermann, constantly fragment while the magma rises to the surface. The constant fragmenting breaks the gas bubbles and releases a lot of gas before the magma even reaches the surface. Once the magma reaches the surface, there is little pressure, or bubbles left; therefore, there is no explosion.
To put the two different kinds of eruptions into perspective Manga gave a good, real-life example that makes the theory clear. "Silly Putty is the same way - it deforms smoothly if you pull slowly, but it breaks if you pull quickly." When magma is evenly stretched, at a slower rate, releasing gas along the way, an explosion won’t occur. However, if the gas bubbles are increasingly putting pressure on the magma, it cannot keep up and will suddenly break, causing an explosion.
Manga and Gonnermann came up with their theory that fragmentation is universal because of their studies on California’s Big Glass Mountain Volcano. There were multi-colored bands on the rocks that they studied. “The bands, which contain different concentrations of microcrystals of the mineral pyroxene, are created by shear forces as the magma rises under the volcano and as it flows on the surface” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley).
From their joint hypothesis, Manga started doing funded research by the National Science Foundation and the Sloan Foundation with post-doctoral researcher, Atsuko Namiki. This pair of researchers do experiments with an “in lab volcano simulator” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley). Their work it to try to test their theories about magma fragmentation, and specifically the fascination on how and why magma fragments. Using a corn-syrup type liquid they use their machine to test fragmentation with pressure change. In their volcano simulator they have a camera which “captures 2,000 frames per second, enabling the researchers to analyze the liquid fragmentation” (ScienceMatters@Berkeley). Manga explaines, "these kinds of experiments help us predict whether something like a big landslide at Mount Saint Helens, for example, would change the pressure enough to cause an explosive eruption."
Elementary schools have to find fascinating topics to keep children engaged in learning. Things like mummies, sharks, and volcanoes typically spark children’s interests, as well as mine. Ten years later, I still find myself reading the news about new discoveries on these topics. When I was looking for a “present meaningful scientific contribution to human knowledge” I decided to take a look at the source Professor Wade provided. I looked through a few issues of science related topics to find one that I could not only partially understand, but one that also sparked my interest. I came across an article called, “An Explosive Theory About Volcanoes” by David Pescovitz. I don’t know if I have spent too many hours thinking about journalism class, but the headline caught my attention because of the play on words. Also, I figured it was time that I update myself on this type of science I had once found fascinating in the fifth grade.
The impact this will have on the world is that these theories and experiments may lead to one day being able to predict when a volcano will erupt, and whether it will explode or effuse. Also, this research will help determine other natural contributions to the eruption of volcanoes, like previously stated, landslides.
I definitely think that this is science, because volcanoes are a part of nature, because they are not manmade, and nature is science. Science, as defined by Merriam Webster is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” Based on that definition, this study of volcanoes is science. The researchers are gaining knowledge about volcanoes, and are proving truths about them. Also, they are studying the general laws of how volcanoes work, while discovering new ones. The laws Manga and Namiki are trying to define are tested through scientific method, their volcano simulator.
This connects with what we have been learning in class, especially with Fancis Bacon’s optimism towards knowledge and his book Instauratio Magna. There is a quote from the bible from the Book of David that states, “ Many shall pass to and fo, and science shall be increased (Shapin 20). This applies to the new knowledge about volcanoes because there is a continuous need to know more about them. There have been many scientists before Manga, Gonnermann, and Namiki, but their knowledge has helped the three understand what they do now. There will also be people after them who will continue to find new discoveries.
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Web. 16 Oct. 2009.
Manga, Michael, and Helge Gonnermann. "Explosive volcanism may not be an inevitable consequence of magma fragmentation." Nature (2003). Nature: International Weekly Journal Of Science. 15 Nov. 2003. Web. 12 Oct. 2009.
Pescovitz, David. "An Explosive Theory About Volcanoes." ScienceMatters@Berkeley. University of California, Berkeley, 13 Feb. 2006. Web. 12 Oct. 2009.
Sanders, Robert. "What makes volcanoes explode? It's the bubbles." UC Berkeley News. University of California, Berkeley, 26 Nov. 2003. Web. 12 Oct. 2009.
Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revoltuion. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1998. Print.
"Volcano Facts, Volcano Information, Volcano Videos, Volcano Photos - National Geographic." Environment Facts, Environment Science, Global Warming, Natural Disasters, Ecosystems, Green Living - National Geographic. Web. 17 Oct. 2009.
Critchlow's "Crusher"
So, the weird looking thing above is what I've selected for my blog assignment. Carl Critchlow is the artist of this piece, which was made in 1999. Critchlow is a fantasy artist who was born in Liverpool, England. He has worked as an illustrator on his own comic book projects as well as many others. Critchlow is also known for doing the illustrations on many cards for the collectible card game Magic: The Gathering. I located this work on his website, www.carlcritchlow.com, while searching around for fantasy artists whose names I was familiar with. Many of his illustrations have a darker or creepy feel to them, and I wanted to discuss the impact of these associations and feelings in regards to general aesthetics.
The reason I chose this illustration in particular was because I immediately detected a sort of ominousness when looking at the picture. It appears to be some kind of rusted machine, and its scale is reflected by humanoid figures that it is grasping in its claws. Details of the creature, such as its eyes and claws further back, are obscured my mist or darkness. I noticed that the painting uses a very limited range of colors, which brings me to the first thing I wanted to discuss: What does color add to the way a painting is interpreted? Is it possible for an artist to misuse color when trying to convey something, or does "misuse" generally translate into "misinterpretation"?
As I said before, the "Crusher" possessed some level of shock value when I first looked at it. It was ominous, or creepy, or maybe I was just taken aback because it looked so strange. Fantasy art is definitely something that delves into the realm of the unreal or supernatural, but that doesn't always mean it will evoke emotion. My aesthetic enjoys art that can evoke a particular emotion, and I also appreciate art that is technically difficult or complex; I'm not much of an artist myself, so it is easy for me to appreciate even simple pieces. This brings me to my second topic of discussion: Does your personal aesthetic put more weight on the technical (formalist) aspects of art, or the emotional (emotionalist) aspects of art? Is technically superior art necessarily more impressive than simpler art? Does it matter which emotion is evoked from an illustration - do more preferable feelings toward the piece make the art "better"?
Critchlow's "Crusher" could probably not be appreciated by those of the mimetic perspective of art - it simply doesn't match anything that exists, it doesn't mimic anything. Instrumentalists might be able to extract a purpose behind this piece ("sentient robots will be the death of the human race"), but I don't think that the piece was created with the intent to inform - instrumentalists would generally have much to appreciate about this illustration. Both emotionalists and formalists could find something enjoyable about the piece, though. As mentioned, I got little chills looking at the piece - even if it doesn't provoke a reaction from everyone, it does appear to have been created with the intention of creeping out viewers (or at least warranting a "that's cool"). As far as formalism goes, it probably isn't the most technically impressive work out there, but it did take creativity to come up with such a strange subject. I think Critchlow's limited use of color adds to the painting and enhances the mechanical theme of the subject.
In the above paragraph, I mentioned "intent" a few times. One other thing I wanted to discuss with the class was artist's intent and it's importance; the aim of the artist is going to be considered no matter what kind of art one is looking at (or listening to), so it's definitely a big topic. How much weight does your aesthetic put on artist's intent? Has the artist failed if his or her intent is not obvious or is frequently misinterpreted? Is there ALWAYS intent behind a piece in the first place?
Websites used:
http://comicbookdb.com/creator.php?ID=3053 (List of Critchlow's works)
http://www.carlcritchlow.com/ (Critchlow's website)
Stan, Submerging Man
Finley Fryer with his piece Stan, Submerging Man
The piece of art I chose is entitled Stan, Submerging Man. He was created by Finley Fryer in 1999 for the use in a musical, “Stan’s Room” in northern California. Stan was then put on display for The Burning Man from August 30th to September 6th 1999 in Black Rock Desert, Nevada. His final installation was over five years later in SOMA Park in California from May of 2007 until April of 2008.Finley Fryer has created many large scales pieces made of reclaimed materials. His work is often lit from within to provide a stained glass look. Like Stan, Submerging Man, other pieces of Fryer’s work had been featured at The Burning Man since 1998. His use of other people’s garbage for his work is a continuing challenge to the conventional assumptions on beauty.
Stan, Submerging Man stands at approximately 20 feet tall and weighs close to 2 tons. One of the reasons I chose this was because I found the thought of installations and non-permanent pieces of public art to be very interesting. Does the fact that the piece is only up for a short amount of time more significant and meaningful? Another reason I was drawn to Fryer’s Stan was because of it’s bright colors and the unique materials it is created from. Stan was created from primarily vintage 45 rpm records and recycled plastic, some from old children’s toys.
The subject of this form of art is simply Stan, Submerging Man. Like many other pieces created by Fryer, Stan is meant to give provide give a whimsical, approachable feel. The expression of the piece was quite a factor for its desire to be installed in SOMA Park. The park is in a rough part of the neighborhood with a jail and freeway close by. The goal of installing Stan was to make the park was to make this area a more beautiful place for children to grow up in. Also, because of size of Stan, he can be seen from the freeway to help publicize the fact that there is a neighborhood there. The two aspects that give Stan, Submerging Man the ambiance intended its bright colors and illumination. The bright colors are without a doubt attractive to children and the light coming from within provides a stain glass look which provides a sense of calmness and peace.
In my opinion, art is something created with intent to evoke a reaction or induce an emotion. Stan is definitely a piece to evoke a reaction or at the least a question… Why was he created? What is he made out of? I believe that Stan’s creation would best be described by Anderson’s emotionalist theory, although it could definitely fit into the formalist and instrumentalist theories as well. The reason I believe Stan, Submerging Man fits within the emotionalist theory because of my own response to this piece of art. As intended, Fryer’s piece gave me with a sense of wonderment and provided me with the thought of being in friendly company. The reason I said it could also be considered within the instrumentalist theory is because it was created with a specific intent of use. Lastly, Stan could be seen within the formalist theory because of the detailed aesthetic of the piece. The way the records and recycled pieces of plastic were combined in such a way to create the piece is significant in its own.
I do not believe this piece of art directly relates to any ancient forms of art. Because of Fryer’s interest in stained glass and his work with it in his younger years Stan, Submerging Man does share some resemblance to stained glass art, in the sense of the bright, illuminated colors.
After looking at this piece of art, and thinking about installations and temporary public art, I would like to know, do you think a temporary piece of public art holds more or less significance and why?
Sources Cited:
Black Rock Arts Foundation. "Stan: The Submerging Man — Black Rock Arts Foundation." Black Rock Arts Foundation . 18 Oct. 2009
"Laura Weil on Burning Man Stan coming to SOMA Park." Sparks. 1 Mar. 2007. 17 Oct. 2009
Sirota, Alex. "Flickriver." Flickriver - A new way to view Flickr photos and more.... 18 Oct. 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
COLDFUSION
ColdFusion: Sounds too good to be true.
Resources used to attain my information:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-fusion
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/24/cold-fusion.html
ColdFusion is a hypothetical form of nuclear fusion occurring without the use of extreme temperature or pressure. Meaning that nuclear fusion of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen; can be met at a relatively near room temperature. Now I know that just sounded like mambo jumbo but by the end of this presentation you will be as intrigued by ColdFusion as I was and everyone else in the world.
ColdFusion can date as far back as the early nineteenth century, but what I am focusing on is two electrochemists from the university of Utah Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, they first announced their discovery of ColdFusion on March 23, 1989. They claimed that they conducted an experiment at room temperature using platinum and palladium electrodes immersed in heavy water (deuterium oxide) produced excess heat and other byproducts that they described to be a fusion reaction at room temperature. Fusion is the reaction involved in the release of the destructive energy of a hydrogen bomb, in which requires extensive high temperatures. So, to produce fusion as room temperature is a phenomenon. They used an electrolysis experiment called a calorimeter in which a palladium and heavy water are within the calorimeter- an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. Current was then applied continuously for weeks. The power can jump from room temperature to 70 degrees Celsius and remain at that level for a period of time but no more then two days, although that proves that the power leaving the cell was significantly higher then the power going in. but recent studies by Lonchampt, Bonnetain and Hicter of New Hydrogen Energy in Japan in 1996, reenacted the experiment and got similar results when compared to the earlier data, so they concluded that Fleischmann and Pons experiment was very accurate, simple and precise. Although there are improvements and changes that need to be made; the experiment itself is a great way towards the study of ColdFusion phenomenon.
All in all if ColdFusion is true it would virtually mean that there would be an unlimited cheap energy supply for all humanity. I know, it sounds too good to be true but it is possible, although investigations of fusion as a possible energy source hit a wall until the problems of being able to design an apparatus to contain and sustain such a reaction is found. But the fact of creating fusion at room temperature means an unlimited source of power that uses water as fuel and produces almost zero waste; it does sound too good to be true. ColdFusion would essentially make oil obsolete, when or if ever proven and the impact on the world would be HUGE, who knows with oil obsolete there would be no oil emissions and there for we could stop and or reverse global warming.
ColdFusion has been being studied for years and still no one scientist including scientist that have claimed cold fusion can duplicate any one experiment and get the same results; making it hard for the government to continue to put money towards the study of ColdFusion. ColdFusion intrigues me, that is why I choose it, I want to save our environment and the production of ColdFusion could do just that. Soon after I started studying, I became obsessed with ColdFusion and how it works, it is rather simple to understand but it is as though there is one piece of the puzzle missing and for us to fully prove that low nuclear energy has been produced and sustained would be HUGE.
Of course the study of ColdFusion is science it has experiments and hypothesis and all that jazz, but some believe and I agree that ColdFusion can not be explained by chemical reaction alone.
I think that out of the scientist we are studying as of right now Newton would be the one to discover ColdFusion. This connects to what we are studying in class rather well because we are studying scientist that have changed the world with their discoveries, and that is what ColdFusion is. Once proven it will change the world and years and years and years from now students will be reading about the scientist who changed the world by creating a way to sustain ColdFusion.
In conclusion I hope that you learned something new today or gain clarification on a question you had about ColdFusion. This is rather fascinating and I highly suggest keeping up to date with it (I know I am going to). If you have any Questions please do ask, I will answer them to the best of my ability.
Thank You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)