Timely prizes

Here's something fun that I feel like I should have heard about before now, what with following science news and all that.

The Center for Communicating Science has an annual challenge to (surprise!) communicate a scientific subject—in a way that an 11-year-old will understand. Which means no university level math. Obviously, my posts here are not even close to what they're looking for, since I assume at least high school chemistry, most of the time, and I like including math.

One of the two winners is a canadian PhD student in chemistry and, from the look of his videos, an all-around goof. I certainly got a few laughs out of his video, and I thought his explanation was the clearest I've ever heard.

Simulated Failure

Simulating normal operation is something that's been done for a while now, ever since computers got powerful enough to do it. Once validated, a model of, say, a stirred tank, will let an engineer consider where two liquids being mixed are not mixing properly, or where fragile solids are likely to be broken because the shear is high, and adjust the design accordingly before the manufacturer ever cuts metal.

I started by talking about fluid dynamics simulation because that and chemical reaction simulation are the two aspects I'm most likely to work with. Other simulations which could affect me but are outside of my field are materials and mechanical related - pipe and tank fractures, for example. The stresses and weak points of a piece of equipment are something I have to trust to a mechanical engineer, but I have to think about it at least a bit, because what's inside those tanks and pipes is sometimes hot, sometimes toxic, sometimes corrosive, or other forms of dangerous and undesirable to have present outside the equipment, and I have to know what kind of safety features and procedures I have to put in place, from sensors to detect a small leak to secondary containment to prevent a catastrophic spill from escaping and doing even more damage.

Splat!

Figuring out where a spatter came from is useful sometimes. Not in any field I've personally worked in, but then I don't usually work with things that go splat. Some things which go splat, where the spatter marks remaining after the fact are the only evidence available to figure out how exactly it happened, include volcanoes (which can make very big, very dangerous splats most sane people wouldn't want to watch in person) and people being attacked (which often ends with the source of the spatter in no condition to describe the attack).

One obvious thing about spatters is that the individual marks are ovals, and they point in the direction of their source. This has been known for a long time now, and has been used in forensics to determine where a victim was. It could also be used for volcanoes, if nobody saw which of the vents erupted due to running for their lives.

What the oval spatters didn't accurately point to was how high the source was.