Science

[Nerdanel]

i thought i'd get this thread up from the depths of the deepest entmoot sea, and at the same time take the chance to advertise my beloved partner's new science blog,

inspiring science

you should have a look!

[inked]

Veni, Vidi, favorabilissimo!

[Valandil]

Science question for the scientists here.

My oldest is in 8th grade, and Chicago has many high school options - so we're doing the big high school search now. A few high schools do something totally different with science from what I considered the norm: they teach Physics first - to all the freshmen.

What do you guys think about that? Pros and cons? Have you heard of or experienced that approach before?

Thank you.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Science question for the scientists here.

My oldest is in 8th grade, and Chicago has many high school options - so we're doing the big high school search now. A few high schools do something totally different with science from what I considered the norm: they teach Physics first - to all the freshmen.

What do you guys think about that? Pros and cons? Have you heard of or experienced that approach before?

Thank you.

What is the norm? Biology, chemistry, and physics introduced at the same time?

[GrayMouser]

I would guess the idea is that physics is the most basic, and you start out from there, but that seems to me to be committing the fallacy of reductionism. Different sciences need to be taught at their own different levels of organisation.

How it would work out in practise at the high school level is another matter.

Other than feeding into the arrogance of physicists, as in the famous Wofgang Pauli, whose wife left him for a university colleague:

" Had she taken a bullfighter I would have understood. But a chemist ? "

[GrayMouser]

Speaking of physics, a joke:

Heisenberg and Schrodinger have to attend a physics conference, so Schrodinger says "Hey, Werner, I've got to take this apparatus for an experiment I want to demonstrate. Can you give me a ride?"

Heisenberg says no problem, but when Schrodinger shows up on the day, he's carrying a huge box.

"We'll have to put it in the trunk," says Heisenberg; done, and then off they go.

As they're cruising down the highway they get pulled over by a cop.
The officer approaches the car and asks Heisenberg
"Excuse me, sir, do you know how fast you were going?"
"No idea," says Heisenberg," but I do know exactly where I am."

(Pause for laughter)

So the cop says,"I'm going to have to look in the trunk."
He comes back a few minutes later and asks "Who does the big box belong to ?"
"It's mine," says Schrodinger.
"Well, sir, do you know that there's a dead cat in that box?" asks the cop.

And Schrodinger says "I do now."

Thankyou, thank you, I'll be appearing in the Einstein Bar and Grill all this Planck unit.

[Willow Oran]

I attended an experimental public high school and our first two years had us using an Integrated Science curriculum that covered physics, biology, simple genetics, and some environmental sciences while junior year was devoted to chemistry and senior year was AP Biology.

Given that I enjoyed the last two years and spent most of my freshman science classes reading LotR and the Silmarillion under the desk, I can't really recommend the Integrated Science approach.

But, we did start off that first year with physics, and I don't find that learning those principles first really hurt my education.

Whichever curriculum the school uses though, make sure the person teaching it is effective. We had two teachers who alternated years/semesters. I loved listening to one of them, but the other one was drier than the slowest chapter of the Sil.

[Grey_Wolf]

I'm thinking all the time of ways of generating electricity for one or perhaps two households. The latest two ideas are these:

1.
A device that consists of a free standing "cylinder" which best described as this shape () with narrow troughs cut into it and circular angled "wings" which channels either a water or air through them and thus makes it spin and through two "arms", one in each end that holds it place, with chains in them transfers the power into a generator and thus creates electricity.

2.
A shallow dish which contains liquid crystal which is subjected to intensely focused sunlight and then begins to spin in a sort of labyrinthine metal matrix thus creating static electricity which then is channelled into batteries.

What do you think? Are they at all feasible? Glad to know.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

A device that consists of a free standing "cylinder" which best described as this shape () with narrow troughs cut into it and circular angled "wings" which channels either a water or air through them and thus makes it spin and through two "arms", one in each end that holds it place, with chains in them transfers the power into a generator and thus creates electricity.

Sounds like a regular mill-principle to me. How will you channel the water or air through your device?

A shallow dish which contains liquid crystal which is subjected to intensely focused sunlight and then begins to spin in a sort of labyrinthine metal matrix thus creating static electricity which then is channelled into batteries.

Focussing the sunlight will be tricky as the sun doesn't stand still. Also what kind of liquid crystal do you know that spins under light? I've never heard of something like that.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Sounds like a regular mill-principle to me. How will you channel the water or air through your device?

My idea was that the disc-like wings that are placed above and below each of the groves in the cylinder would channel the air or water into them and thus making it spin.

Focussing the sunlight will be tricky as the sun doesn't stand still. Also what kind of liquid crystal do you know that spins under light? I've never heard of something like that.

Well, I suppose that might prove a bit tricky. I should of course added the angling of the focusing lens adjusting itself to the angle of the sun. And liquid crystal heated up should move shouldn't it? or is it so inflexible that no matter what amount of energy it is exposed to it won't? My idea was inspired by the fact that LCD tv technology is based on subjecting the crystals to electricity which makes them rearrange themselves into patterns.

Im alway trying to come up with different ideas for renewable energy sources for one or two households. This pondering is based on the injustice in the new agreement on electricity zones in Sweden where the south and especially Scania is supposed to pay double rates as compared to the north.

So any workable idea that can come on the market will hopefully ease the burden heaped on us southern Swedes.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

My idea was that the disc-like wings that are placed above and below each of the groves in the cylinder would channel the air or water into them and thus making it spin.

Sorry, I still don't get it. Neither water or air is going to move by itself. You either need a powersource that moves water or air into the device for you (in which case you probably need to put more energy in it than you can possibly gain), or make use of naturally flowing water and wind.

Well, I suppose that might prove a bit tricky. I should of course added the angling of the focusing lens adjusting itself to the angle of the sun.

So you will need a mechanism for this. One that no doubt will need power of its own.

And liquid crystal heated up should move shouldn't it? or is it so inflexible that no matter what amount of energy it is exposed to it won't? My idea was inspired by the fact that LCD tv technology is based on subjecting the crystals to electricity which makes them rearrange themselves into patterns.

Buh? I don't think the technology quite works that way...

Im alway trying to come up with different ideas for renewable energy sources for one or two households. This pondering is based on the injustice in the new agreement on electricity zones in Sweden where the south and especially Scania is supposed to pay double rates as compared to the north.

A commendable endavour. However, you kind of need to good grasp of physics or engineering to come up with workable systems for this, IMO.

Personally, for households, I consider energy saving or more energy-efficient mechanisms will in long term be better than many small-scale energy-creation.

[Grey_Wolf]

I suppose you've to a point - if you mean that water in the seas doesnt move nor air in the sky.

As for the liquid crystal idea - you're quite right that is dud - sorry, I didnt quite think it through technology-wise.

And as for "energy-saving" or "more energy-efficient mechanisms" - that is not possible to install in old houses like ours - which is a 16th - 18th century cottage. Most other houses built in the 70s and 80s, which do not allow for any improvements, are as bad off too.

Only those Grand Design constructions can have built-in energy-saving or -efficient devices. They are pretty much being built along those principles.

The windmill-monsters, which I do not consider either ecological or a beautifying aspect to nature, doesnt do much to decrease the burden of exorbitant electricity rates we southerners are forced to pay.

Anyway, we southerners are pretty stuck with a bad situation unless mass-production of small handy power-sources are begun or more local powerplants are built.

[The Gaffer]

I strongly disagree re: wind farms. We seem to put up with (far more ecologically damaging) roads and pylons blighting our landscape, what's with the objections to turbines?

Anyway, they aren't yet practicable on a small scale, and rely heavily on subsidies.

GW, you should check out ground- and air-source heat pumps and solar panels. I think these are the most effective, proven technologies. A chum of mine gets 5MW out of his panels at times, which covers his own usage, with the excess being sold back to the power company.

Problem is, when you need it most, in the winter, is when you have the least resource.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

I suppose you've to a point - if you mean that water in the seas doesnt move nor air in the sky.

Are you trying to be vague on purpose? Yes, tides and wind move. It's a shocker, I know. But you never clarified which you intend to use in your contraption. Wind? Rivers? Waterfalls? Seas? If your goal is to construct something ordinary households can use, well, not all those have access to these sources. What works for generating power from wind will not work the same way in water. I'm trying to get an idea how your design actually works. Do you intend to just put the installation in the garden, plug it in the grid and expect it to spontaneously generate energy?

And as for "energy-saving" or "more energy-efficient mechanisms" - that is not possible to install in old houses like ours - which is a 16th - 18th century cottage. Most other houses built in the 70s and 80s, which do not allow for any improvements, are as bad off too.

There are a gazillion possible ways to approach energy-efficiency. Gaffer names a few. And while not all of those work in every household, luckily not everybody lives in a centuries old cottage (I know the feeling though, house from the start of the previous century, classified therefore impossible to do major works).

Only those Grand Design constructions can have built-in energy-saving or -efficient devices. They are pretty much being built along those principles.

I disagree. Friends of mine are building their own house which will be 'semi-passive' (no extra heating, superb isolation) and they've managed to do so without a significant cost raise. But I naturally agree on the point that installing energy-saving mechanism is often much easier in a house in construction than a finished one.

The windmill-monsters, which I do not consider either ecological or a beautifying aspect to nature, doesnt do much to decrease the burden of exorbitant electricity rates we southerners are forced to pay.

What does one have to do with the other? Your electricity rates aren't suddenly going to change because Sweden has windmills. Who owns them, which grid they're on, government subsidies (if there are any), the mills' capacity, number, size and distance to towns, all these things and more factor in the price of the energy they generate. If they generate but a fraction of the country's energy production (as here for instance), their presence is not going to influence prices much.

They're not the prettiest, I agree. But I like seeing them a lot more than factory chimneys or telephone pylons.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Are you trying to be vague on purpose? Yes, tides and wind move. It's a shocker, I know. But you never clarified which you intend to use in your contraption. Wind? Rivers? Waterfalls? Seas? If your goal is to construct something ordinary households can use, well, not all those have access to these sources. What works for generating power from wind will not work the same way in water. I'm trying to get an idea how your design actually works. Do you intend to just put the installation in the garden, plug it in the grid and expect it to spontaneously generate energy?

Yes I that was my idea. It was meant to be able to spin with water and air. When the wind blows at the device it is supposed to spin because the wind or water hits that angled groves and is channelled into groves and is supposed to make it spin. I also supposed it to work that the generator conncted to the chains in the supports when tied in with the cable to the house. Sorry that I didnt specify the entire line of tranferrence.


There are a gazillion possible ways to approach energy-efficiency. Gaffer names a few. And while not all of those work in every household, luckily not everybody lives in a centuries old cottage (I know the feeling though, house from the start of the previous century, classified therefore impossible to do major works).

Yes, I know that too. But as you said, not all solutions work on all houses.


I disagree. Friends of mine are building their own house which will be 'semi-passive' (no extra heating, superb isolation) and they've managed to do so without a significant cost raise. But I naturally agree on the point that installing energy-saving mechanism is often much easier in a house in construction than a finished one.

We were actually thinking of installing a heat pump, but first of all, the walls in the cottage aren't completely solid and would fall apart at an attempt at drilling into the to place the device.


What does one have to do with the other? Your electricity rates aren't suddenly going to change because Sweden has windmills. Who owns them, which grid they're on, government subsidies (if there are any), the mills' capacity, number, size and distance to towns, all these things and more factor in the price of the energy they generate. If they generate but a fraction of the country's energy production (as here for instance), their presence is not going to influence prices much.

I meant that the windmills is to be our only option since they shut down our nuclear powerplant. There is nothing else at the moment in the larger scale. So we will be stuck with higher rates (double anyone elses) for any foreseeable future. We could have wave-power in the strait, waste and gas burning plants etc if the politicians cared one iota for us down here.

They're not the prettiest, I agree. But I like seeing them a lot more than factory chimneys or telephone pylons.

Anyway, I sure wish the scientists couild come up a sure-fire device that would generate power for the little man - one that would be easy to manufacture and easy to connect so that we wouldn't be so dependant on large scale multimillion kroner facilities.

[The Gaffer]

They already have: solar panels and ground/air source heat pumps.

I read something recently about new photovoltaic materials that could radically increase the efficiency of solar, which is currently very poor, in the single figures in terms of the % of available energy that they can translate into usable power.

However, the problem is the cost. Big installations by definition benefit from huge economies of scale and are therefore inherently cheaper than individual house-by-house ones. It would be horrendously inefficient and costly if each house generated its own power.

The problem is that we will keep voting in politicians who turn over power to private interests. The energy industry is one of the few where you can still make megabucks, and we insist on allowing them the freedom to fleece us. They will never reduce their prices, particularly not now that we are coming to the end of the cheap oil era.

[brownjenkins]

I think physics is an excellent start! It's one of the most conceptual and theoretical areas of science... big picture and deep at the same time.

[GrayMouser]

Happy Darwin Day!

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

What is the norm? Biology, chemistry, and physics introduced at the same time?

Sorry - always meant to get back and answer this.

I'm not sure if there is a norm. At least not anymore. In my state, there's only one year of science required in high school. Most students at my school who just did the minimum - either took General Science or Earth Science as freshmen, or Biology as sophomores. Some took both of those - if they were more science-oriented. Chemistry was the next level up, and Physics was sort of seen as higher still. So Physics class was mostly seniors, with some juniors.

I thought that was the norm - at least here in the USA. But it's really just the way I experienced it. I'm curious now to know - in what sequence other mooters took their science classes, if they took several at the high school level.

I'm not sure what direction my son will want to go - with a high school choice. There's a large one that is really strong in technical aspects, and has a lot to offer - but I don't know if it'd be a good idea for him to start with physics there. I'm mostly leaning toward that school (as he is), but the small school that teaches physics first is intriguing. We found out too - at a subsequent visit - that their freshman level physics is pretty basic - and even geared to be fun. And that they have a more advanced physics course at the upper grades.

[The Gaffer]

Val, what age ranges are at "High School"?

Here, it is 11-18.

First two years, everyone does Science, which is usually given one slot in the timetable, but you study Biology, Physics and Chemistry separately within that slot.

Then, people choose the subjects they are going to study for GCSE (English) or Standard Grades (Scottish). Here they are studied as separate subjects, and you sit separate exams at age 16. I think it might be compulsory to study at least one science or maths. Not sure though.

That's the sort of thing that politicians tinker with to make it look like they care about science when in fact they haven't the first idea about it because they all studied politics or classics at Oxbridge and science is for oiks.

But in answer to your question, they are done in parallel usually. One of the things they could do a lot better, IMO, is co-ordination across the disciplines. You know, stuff like Avogadro's number comes up in all three in different guises.