You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Science’ category.
A FLIR ONE ® infrared imaging attachment for my Android 6S cell phone arrived at my door the other day. The price was initially a bit high, $350, but had recently dropped to a more attractive price of $249, so I pulled the trigger. The online transaction on the FLIR website was seamless and the delivery time was less than one week. At the time the FLIR ONE® was offered on Amazon for the same price.
The unit has two imaging sensors arranged horizontally side-by-side and one centimeter apart: One optical sensor and one Lepton IR thermal imager detecting in the 8-14 micron wavelength range. According to Optics.org, the Lepton is an “uncooled long-wave infrared (LWIR) microbolometer focal plane array”. The FLIR has its own battery which must be charged separately. It will not energize from your phone’s battery.
The unit arrives nearly ready for plug and play. Before it can be operated the user must download an app from FLIR. This process went smoothly and in a short time I had the unit operating. The compact FLIR unit connects to the Android via the micro USB connector on the phone.
About the imaging. The FLIR ONE superimposes the IR image atop an optical image that consists primarily of edge lines defined through high contrast. This is a useful feature because it improves the image sharpness and helps set the context of the IR image. In a darkened space the optical image is lost and only the IR image will be visible (second image). The IR image itself is relatively low resolution owing to the limited number of pixels from the IR detector. At close range a significant parallax effect occurs, appearing as shifted overlap of the optical and IR images.
The image above is an example of a false color image captured from the FLIR ONE. The shot of this north-facing door was taken during late afternoon on a sunny day in Colorado. The internal air temperature was ~68 °F and the outside air temp was ~35 °F in the shade. As is customary, the coolest temperatures are indicated in blue and warmer temperatures are indicated by a gradient from red to yellow to white. The IR sensor seems to saturate fairly easily, but the automatic exposure control will get a handle on the image, though not instantaneously. I have found that the best images are had by limiting the frame to avoid including overly IR-bright features. This allows the exposure control to bring out thermal subtleties in the image much as any auto exposure feature would in the optical range.
The second image shows a basement gas hot water heater and the hot water output line directed upwards to the floor joists. The hot water lines are insulated with closed cell polymer foam insulation from the local hardware store. The water heater has nothing more than the factory equipped insulation.
The FLIR ONE indicates infrared temperatures by way of false color images and spot temperature readings. But temperature readings from IR thermometry are not the whole story when it comes to understanding fugitive heat losses, radiative or otherwise.
An IR image shows surface temperatures based on assumptions on average emissivity and scaling through the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The amount of radiant energy emitted by a black body is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. A plot is shown here. Emissivity is the quotient of emitted energy from a surface divided by that emitted by a black body radiator at the same temperature. Every surface has a characteristic emissivity based on its composition. According to the linked emissivity table, polished aluminum has an emissivity of 0.095; concrete 0.95; mercury, 0.12; sanded spruce, 0.82; and white lacquer, 0.95. All these values are at 100 °C.
In the third photo, a 1 ft x 1 ft piece of aluminum foil was wrapped around a stretch of the insulated hot water feed line above the heater, as shown in the photo. The foil is in thermal contact with the foam insulation on the 3/4″ copper pipe. Hot water was run for a few minutes to draw heated water into the plumbing. Caution should be taken in that IR radiation does reflect off of surfaces which may lead to inaccurate conclusions about heat flow in the system in question. Above, the aluminum foil is reflecting some IR from another source. Up close and from another angle the foil appears much cooler than it is.
Plainly the emissivity of the highly heat conductive aluminum is different from the foam insulated pipe. The foil is in thermal contact with the foam and should be near the temperature of the foam surface, but the false color image suggests that the foil temperature is lower in temperature. Because of its much lower emissivity (ca. 10 % of foam) the foil only appears to be cooler. The foil is less radiant than the foam which has an emissivity of ~0.90.
Polished aluminum has high thermal conductivity but low IR emissivity. Foam, which has high IR emissivity (see images), is known for it’s insulating properties. And by that we mean, foam is a poor conductor of heat. What aluminum lacks in emissivity, it more than makes up for in conductivity. And while foam lacks in conductivity, it appears to be an efficient emitter of IR.
It is useful to mention the meaning of “insulation“. A material that conducts thermal power poorly can be said to have insulating properties. Thermal power (dq/dt) is the flow rate of thermal energy (q) per second. Thermal power is the rate of flow in Joules per second. For reference, one Joule per second is one Watt. The valuable attribute of a thermal insulator is that it can resist the quantity of power (Watts) flowing through a unit area such as a square meter. The amount of thermal power moving across a unit area, like a surface, is called heat flux and is in units of W/m^2. It is common to express thermal resistance through a material by the R-value. An R-value is the ratio of the temperature drop (ΔT) across the insulating material to the heat flux through it, Q: R = ΔT/Q. So, as the heat flux gets smaller for a given ΔT, R grows larger in magnitude. In practical terms, a large R-value is desirable for insulation.
Looking at the radiant stretch of emissive insulated pipe rising from the water heater, we might initially guess that the IR image shows the whole thermal picture. But really, this guess is muddied by details. A warm pipe will be radiating energy as well as losing heat by conduction to whatever it is in contact with and by air convection.
IR radiation thermometry is useful when measuring a surface temperature is not practical. Accuracy, however, will depend on the emissivity of the surfaces of interest. The FLIR ONE is an economical imaging device for capturing IR images of large areas. The spot temperature feature is useful for recording the temperature of desired objects. Image files are easily downloaded from the phone and manipulated as jpeg files. Users will find many good applications for this affordable and easy to use IR imaging system.
Easy and cheap is great, but it is advisable for those wanting to do commercial work with IR thermography to take credible coursework and obtain some credentials. There are a few subtleties to thermography and it is best to be a little overqualified than not. Thermography courses can be found on the internet.
The news feeds are piping articles across the internets about Americans and their views on matters of science. Of particular interest is the finding that 51 % of respondents expressed a lack of confidence in matters of the big bang and cosmic origins and age. Predictably, scientific models of human origins and evolutionary science also elicited a considerable lack of confidence.
As the linked article in The Atlantic suggests, there is nothing new in America about ignorance of science and its panoply of theories, models, images and data. I’ve come to believe that wide spread ignorance of science may be contracting a bit. Some folks might be a little less refractory to science if gently brought into the discussion. It is especially evident when you engage someone in conversation about the concepts with which they might anonymously criticize in a survey. Often if you can get a person past a key mechanistic concept, their dogmatic view of things may soften.
Scientists tend to look at new things analytically and with skepticism. Others may have a devotional world view. The devotional approach is the programming language of faith in and preservation of doctrines. For the scientist, the goal is to strip doctrines to their bare mathematical essence- a single equation that describes the relationships between variables and fundamental constants. If something is observed, measurements can be taken.
Molecular medicine and microbiology unavoidably force one to come face to face with the plasticity of DNA and the short term variability of genetic change. Resistance to drugs or the spread of BT or glyphosate resistant traits into insect and weed populations are a great entry point for talking about molecular evolution. It also allows one to get away from the troublesome paradigm of Darwin, whose work carries religious baggage for many. Irrespective of what Darwin wrote, modern molecular biologists would have eventually postulated and substantiated evolution from the molecule up, as opposed to the Finch down. The Darwin model of evolution has become tired and a little worn. We really should be giving more credit to molecular biology for advances in the understanding of genetic change.
I think those who have devoted their lives to understanding science tend to forget the tremendous expenditure of time and effort that goes into a deep and quantitative understanding of nature. My experience in teaching and in public outreach in science has been that a great many people are willing to be entertained by presentations on extrema, that is, the biggest, the most powerful, the most dangerous, the most poisonous, etc. Folks like to hear about extreme phenomena and scientists are only too happy to talk about the dangers of black holes or volcanoes or ferocious animals. One can spend an evening talking about such things to a general audience and go home with the impression that the public eats this stuff up.
However, if you closely converse with your audience, you may find in many that their interest is genuine but superficial. They are entertained by the gosh-wow aspects of astronomy, but are unwilling to commit the time and effort to enough study to be competent in a topic. They often only want to see the moon through a large telescope and then go home. This is just human nature and science folk cannot be offended by the slender attention span of the public. Learning science requires a good deal of work and focus. That a large slice of the population is suspicious of the big bang theory suggests that said population has not made the time and energy commitment to learning the science.
Five months past treatment for throat cancer I will set aside The Squamous Chronicles and instead post The Adenocarcinoma Chronicles. Having won the advanced prostate cancer lottery as well, my current adventures involve treatment below the beltline. Here are my impressions of the experience to date.
Physicians, or more specifically in this context, oncologists, are ethically constrained to apply agreed upon treatments for the indications presented by the patient. I have gotten no “off-label” kind of advice up to now. In my case, my PSA was 39 and the biopsy readings from the pathologist were assigned Gleason 9. Well, sonofabitch. That was a fine kettle of fish. Looks like my watchful waiting was long in the waiting and too light in the watchfulness.
The standard treatment regimen in my case is hormone ablation and radiation. For hormone ablation I have had Degarelix and Lupron. For radiation I have begun IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy) with a dose of 76 Gy to the targeted tissue mass. I asked about scatter dose to the testes just because of the obvious proximity. The Rad Onc looked it up and said it was 1 Gy. I then pointed out that I’ve had a goodly bit of radiation in the last year and was there anyone who keeps a running total on the cumulative dose? As expected, the answer was “no” followed quickly by the standard rationale that the disease was far more dangerous than the radiation. I’d say the same thing I suppose.
Things that my docs are reluctant to offer are opinions on how this whole disease plays out. There seem to be several elements to this reticence. First, predicting the future is difficult, especially with a stochastic phenomenon like cancer radiotherapy. Second, there are good reasons for the doc to not focus on gloomy topics like life expectancy, especially if the survival stats are not the best. Most people at some point spontaneously think of cancer as a death sentence. At present I view it as a chronic condition that will play out stepwise in terms of a convergent treatment and remission series that eventually ends with refractory and widespread disease. Seems pretty obvious. It is the time-scale that I am uncertain of.
I am writing about this because my treatment regimen seems relatively ordinary to this point given the status of the condition. Perhaps there are some fellows who have yet to climb on this train who are uncertain of where it goes. This is my journey and I’ll pass along my notes.
Now 14 treatments into radiation. With the help of medical textbooks ordered from Amazon, I have slowly been learning more about the disease and the treatment. During my weekly consult with the Rad-Onc I asked the question- “What was the T number from the pathologists notes?” He replied it was T3c N1. The N1 means there is a node involved so it’s Stage 4 cancer. No one actually came out and said this to me so I had to ask. It is one thing to suspect it and another to hear it. Hard to say if this knowledge is in some way empowering.
If you knew me personally, you’d know that as a reductionist my profile can be reduced to that of a liberal atheist scientist with marginally good manners. I broke the shackles of magical thinking in high school after reading a few books by Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan. Though I have not been the same since, I have come to sympathize a bit with Quakers and their predilection for peace.
My religious upbringing was quite ordinary for a young Iowegian lad in the 1960’s. Confirmation in the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) in 8th grade followed by a short stint as a reluctant acolyte. The church seemed firmly footed in bedrock as an institution and adept at indoctrinating the young. In catechism studies I tried to understand the authoritarian system that is outlined by Martin Luther and the strange collection of narratives that make up the King James Bible.
There were abstractions that didn’t make sense then and are still a mystery to me today. The concept of the Holy Trinity always seemed suspiciously anthropomorphic. Then there is the crucifixion as a kind of “ghostly sorting mechanism” for salvation. It stands out against the backdrop of natural phenomena like physics and biology- mechanistic systems which seem to suffice for everything else. Finally, there is God’s seemingly endless requirement for worship and admiration which has always struck me as a vanity unnecessary for a supreme being. The whole scheme reeks of iron-age anthropology.
I remember the day it happened. I was praying for something or other. Trying to have a little spiritual time with the Big Guy. It finally dawned on me that I was talking to myself and in doing so, wishing for some particular outcome to happen. All those years. Praying and wishing were indistinguishable. I’ll admit, I was never one to volunteer a lot of praise to God. Heaping praise on a deity seemed patronizing and wholly unnecessary. Surely if God could elicit wrath, then he’d certainly pick up on being flattered.
Well, in the end, so what? Another tedious atheist commits apostasy. Like most people in US culture, my moral basis was built on what has been described as Judeo-Christian morals or ethics. It’s hard to avoid. But just as the earth does not rest on a foundation, I am not limited to sensibilities derived only by the sons of Abraham in a far earlier age. My culture and my brain tell me that theft, murder, and the other spiritual crimes (sins) are bad for the common good. That respect for others has a pleasurable and sensible aspect that threats of eternal damnation do not improve on.
The reductionist in me can’t resist the following assertion. Deistic religion reduces to cosmology. In the end, a religion offers a theory of the universe. It is a kind of physics that defines relationships between the prime mover and his (?) bipedal subjects imbued with mystical sensitivities. It claims to define the outcome of the disposition of a soul, whatever that may be. I don’t even believe in the existence of the mind, much less a soul. As a form of physics, religion lacks means by which theories can be tested. Quantitation of a spiritual element is an idea that has yet to see practice. It seems to lack predictive capability to estimate an outcome that can be validated. It is definitely not a science. It is not about matter or energy. It is about how to conduct ones life against a backdrop of divine authority and within a box of behaviors.
But our brains seem to be constructed in a manner such that religious/spiritual notions are nearly irresistible. Billions of people have claimed to feel its draw and testify to its merits. The projection of anthropomorphic imagery in myth is common in diverse cultures. The Abrahamic religions congealed from cultures that were apparently unaware of the concept of zero. Where heaven is death with a plus sign, hell is death with a negative sign. To an atheist death is just zero. It has no sign or magnitude. It is unconsciousness and devoid of the awareness of pain or pleasure. Zero sensory processing. It is neither exaltation nor agony. Just zero. Entropy prevails. Such an outlook is hardly appealing enough to gather followers. It is grim and without hope of graduation to eternal bliss. The take home lesson is to live in the moment, not the future.
Who am I to argue with millennia of religious thought? I don’t know. All I can say is that even as a cancer patient, I remain refractory to the pull of religious and mystical thinking. So it was and so it is.
Divinity students! Relax. I’m no threat to your faith. My conclusions on this life of ours offers no ceremony and precious little fellowship. I can say that I’ve had an eye-full of the clockwork of this universe. Adherence to evangelical doctrines could not have provided the amazing insights. And for that I have no regrets.
Ran into an interesting recommendation on fighting a lithium fire in Joshi, D.K., et al, Organic Process Research & Development, 2005, 9, 997-1002.
In addition to the usual admonitions on the handling of a reactive metal like Li, they warned that water, sand, carbon dioxide, dry chemical, or halon should not be used. Rather, they suggest dry graphite or lithium chloride instead. This seems quite reasonable to me, having reacted both silica and CO2 with magnesium powder in chemical demonstrations in a previous life. If Mg will reduce SiO2 and CO2, then hot/burning lithium ought to be reactive as well.
A similar recommendation is given in Furr, A.K. CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety, 5th Edition, p. 299, ISBN 0-8493-2523-4.
Lots of semi-batch process development and safety work going on in my lab. We use our reaction calorimeter for a variety of studies now. Naturally we want to know about energy accumulation with a given feed rate or any unforeseen induction or initiation problems in a reaction. We can also home in on recommendations for safe feed rates of reactants into a reaction mass.
What I am beginning to learn from the RC1 work is that running a reaction at low temperature is frequently done for sketchy reasons. Unless there are selectivity or side product issues, you really have to question why the reaction is specified to be run at low temperature. I think some of it comes from habit gained in grad school. Low temperature may introduce dangerous situations with abrupt initiation by accumulation of unreacted reagents. Or it may lead to overly long feed time with the associated costs of added plant time and labor.
There are reagent incompatibilities like nBuLi in THF above – 15 C or so. But you’ll find that MeTHF is a bit more tolerant of temperature than is THF.
The precise temperature management capabilities (Tr) of an RC1 including the ability to lock on a temperature or precision ramping gives insight on solubility questions or on freezing points. The instrument also provides heat capacity data for engineering calculations. it is a very useful apparatus.
So, here I am wide awake trying to recall what the Ambien molecule looks like. I’ll probably have to look it up.
Later this morning is my 3rd chemo treatment of 6. Something is knocking me down. The x- radiation plainly has been doing what it does best- giving a 3-D sunburn. The throat is developing mucositis and Is crazy sore. Blistering should start soon.
I’m using magic mouthwash, comprised of lidocaine, benedryl, and Maalox. This pharmacy concoction has the snotty rheology of melted ice cream. The throat issue is definitely interfering with getting enough calories for body weight maintenance. Have lost ca 10 lbs to date. I’m gonna get a talkin’ to from the dietitian today.
Other than sore throat, the next unpleasant drug side effects are those from the anti-nausea meds. The anti-emetic meds prevent one from hurling through a sore throat. They are also very effective at constipation. So, one gets to know the offerings at Walgreens.
This afternoon I’ll get my 7th dose of 1.8 Gy of x-rays on the way to 54 Gy. The machine doing the deed is a Varian IMRT. It is a very impressive bit of technology. It has a continuously variable aperture and intensity. The rad tech opened the access panels up for me yesterday and showed me the innards. There is a rather large microwave generator inside with waveguides piping energy … somewhere. She said this TrueBeam system could also do electron beam therapy. The machine has a built-in CT scanner to verify that the sorry sod strapped in is aligned properly.
Last Monday I officially became a ligand for platinum. Got the first dose of cis-platin. Somewhere I have molecules- DNA- that are ligated as Pt complexes. The first dose hasn’t been much of an issue. The anti-nausea meds definitely have side effects though.
Five more weeks and 5 more cis-platin doses to go. Week one was without serious side effects thanks to Dulcolax.