Next Town Over: Only 2 Gallons Away!

Wired Magazine comes through again on p. 157 of the October 2012 issue (in bold no less):  "...and releases 2 joules of force onto the glass -"

Joules for energy, Wired; Newtons for force.

Proteins as small as Neutrons!

In the Feb 27 issue of Forbes Magazine, they have a quick, relatively harmless article about a doctor who thinks we should spend more time and money on healthy lifestyles and preventative medicine over, say, classic cancer research.  However, toward the end of the article, this little zinger is in there:
"The trouble is, tracing proteins is hard to do - they are the size of a single neutron."
Huh?  Would the editor let a phrase like "The Declaration of Independence is a phrase shorter than a sentence" get by?  'Cause that is a less egregious error!

Interestingly, they fixed the statement on the version online (apparently after someone commented on this after the original posting).  Now it reads, a bit more reasonably:
"The trouble is, tracing proteins is incredibly hard to do -- they have to be examined at the level of a single neutron."
I assume they are referring to tracking isotopes which can differ by as little as one neutron from isotope to isotope.  However, isotope spotting is generally not thought of as being done at the neutron level - rather you just mass the whole atom and infer the extra neutron that way...
Here's the link to the fixed article:
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/17/david-agus-end-illness/

Colbert Get 'Em Good

Thanks to Irene who forwarded me this video from the Colbert Report: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-january-4-2012-john-heilemann

from 8:10 to about 8:50 he mocks a reporter who cannot subtract!

Really?!?  When the reporter says "Again with the math!", I think to myself if the reporter could not pronounce something on the teleprompter, would he say "Again with the spelling!"? 

Tsk Tsk, History Channel

Tonight, we checked out the History Channel's "How the Earth was Made" (2009).  It was humming along until this line about Carbon dating caught my attention "Because of its molecular structure, Carbon 14 decays after a plant has died and ...."   Ouch!  Molecular structure?  First off, Carbon-14 is an atom, a radioactive isotope of regular carbon and the whole point is that is binds in molecules just like regular Carbon 12. 

This is as if a show about English history off-handedly described Shakespeare's "Othello" as a Sonnet.  Tsk Tsk...

Batteries and Charges In WIRED Magazine

It's a common misconception regarding electricity that we deal with in class all the time, but Wired Magazine got it dead wrong this month (Aug 2011 issue p.30):

"A battery works by converting chemical energy into free electrons; some of the electrons get used, and the rest return to the cell."

Forgivable is the implications that the chemical energy creates the electrons (the energy is used to free the already existing electrons).  Unforgivable is the line "electrons get used" and don't return to the cell.  For every electron that leaves a battery cell, another one enters; there are no electrons getting used up in the process.  The number of electrons in a battery or in any circuit is always constant.  Rather, it is the energy used to promote the electrons to being free in the battery that gets used up in the circuit.

This description of a battery is the same as saying "A factory works by converting breakfast foods in the morning into factory employees.  Some of the employees get used up in the factory doing work and the rest come home in the evening."

Radiation or Radioactivity?

With the Japanese crisis in the news, there is lots of bogus stuff flying about these days. 

First of all, don't tell me about some minuscule amount of radiation found anywhere that is 1000 times below the minimum standard of danger.  If I get more radiation walking in the sunshine without sunblock, then I don't need to hear about it! 

Second, please distinguish between exposure to radiation (the stuff that comes flying out of radioactive material and is only harmful if you stand in the line of fire) and radioactive isotopes (which you might ingest and thus expose yourself to its radiation for as long as the isotope exists in your body).  No one is finding radiation from the nuclear reactors miles away - it's all been absorbed by then.  What you may find is radiation coming from radioactive isotopes which may have come from the damaged power plant! 

Don't confuse an author for his book and don't confuse some words and phrases found in isolation with an entire book.

Solar Wind

The Boston Globe Ideas section had a nice explanation of the Northern Lights. 

However, it is not quite right to say "...[charged particles] are carried outward by the solar wind." 

My understanding is that the charged particles ARE the solar wind!  Also, Newton's first law will get the charged particles to Earth just fine after they have been thrown off of the surface of the Sun.  (no need to be "carried" - inertia does the trick).

Might seem picky, but just like you are not pushed forward to tomorrow by time nor is water pushed towards shore by waves;  i's just not quite right.

The articled also misses a nice symmetry in regards to the northern lights:  Magnetism.  Although the Earth's magnetic field is mentioned as a deflector of most charged particles, the article seems to imply that some particles just happen  to "come hurtling toward the atmosphere at the north and south magnetic poles".  In actuality, the charged particles are spiraling around the magnetic field lines and those fields themselves bring them to the north and south pole (which is where the magnetic field lines exit and enter the Earth). 
The symmetry bit is that magnetic field lines are the original cause of the Solar Eruptions that flung the particles into space in the first place:

The Sun's magnetic field lines throws 'em out and the Eath's magnetic field catches 'em.  That is the outerspace baseball game we catch the tail end of and call "Northern Lights".