Comments for No One's Listening http://blog.mrzach.com Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:16:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 Comment on “Dear Amazon,” Improve the Kindle ideas by vivi http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/dear-amazon-ideas-to-improve-the-kindle/comment-page-1/#comment-344 vivi Wed, 24 Aug 2011 06:16:16 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=214#comment-344 send wiedeman to the grog send wiedeman to the grog

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Mikhail Balabin http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-343 Mikhail Balabin Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:55:29 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-343 "Because Aidan was completing the circuit with his voltmeter, the electrons were free moving through the circuit and not building up at one end of the other." You can not complete a circuit with a voltmeter because voltmeters have very high resistance. For example, I've got a cheap multimeter and its input resistance in voltage measurement mode is 10 megaohm. So, if you hook a voltmeter to a solar battery, no current will flow through a circuit. <em>(Editor's Note: You are correct, and I did misstate this. For anyone interested on how voltmeters work on open circuits vs. series circuits see: <a href="http://www.furryelephant.com/content/electricity/voltage-current/voltmeter-in-series/" rel="nofollow">Fury Elephant's explanation</a> or <a href="http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4596999_a-voltmeter-work.html" rel="nofollow">a more simple explanation</a> from eHow.com. ~Zachariah)</em> “Because Aidan was completing the circuit with his voltmeter, the electrons were free moving through the circuit and not building up at one end of the other.”

You can not complete a circuit with a voltmeter because voltmeters have very high resistance. For example, I’ve got a cheap multimeter and its input resistance in voltage measurement mode is 10 megaohm. So, if you hook a voltmeter to a solar battery, no current will flow through a circuit.

(Editor’s Note: You are correct, and I did misstate this. For anyone interested on how voltmeters work on open circuits vs. series circuits see: Fury Elephant’s explanation or a more simple explanation from eHow.com. ~Zachariah)

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Aidan Dwyer Solar News Gets Reality Check : Green Energy Retailer http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-342 Aidan Dwyer Solar News Gets Reality Check : Green Energy Retailer Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:07:17 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-342 [...] The Atlantic Wire. “This is where bad science starts,” headlines an exhaustive, nearly 4,000-word takedown of Aidan (and, even more pointedly, the media who grabbed his story and ran with it) on the No [...] [...] The Atlantic Wire. “This is where bad science starts,” headlines an exhaustive, nearly 4,000-word takedown of Aidan (and, even more pointedly, the media who grabbed his story and ran with it) on the No [...]

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by sebastian buettrich http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-341 sebastian buettrich Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:02:46 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-341 respect for the respectful way in which you explain why it s nothing without attacking the wrong one (Aiden) instead of those who really should know better. i ve attempted to add a positive angle, by trying to explain what Aiden saw: http://write.less.dk/?p=321 respect for the respectful way in which you explain why it s nothing without attacking the wrong one (Aiden) instead of those who really should know better.

i ve attempted to add a positive angle, by trying to explain what Aiden saw: http://write.less.dk/?p=321

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Pete Markiewicz http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Pete Markiewicz Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:17:44 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-340 Thanks for this amazing post - I agree, much clearer (and online) compared to the more elaborate analysis at capacity factor. It's going to be great fun in my quantitative literacy class. I take your first point as meaning that trees have to optimize more than solar energy collection. So, trees have lots of little, translucent leaves are a result of the multi-optimization. Leaves aren't a good as a single big pane constantly angled to the light, but this has other problems for living things (e.g. trees don't have gimbals). A solar panel may be optimized for one thing, and so this is a case where bio-mimicry is not a good choice. Overall, the whole story, critique, and reaction to critique is a great way to show students critical thinking, as opposed to "magical" thinking. The problem is definitely not Aidan - I remember having similar 'neat' but incorrect ideas when I was that age - (e.g., why not just hook generators to motors for eternal power or bounce one light beam off another to make 3d objects). The issue here is uncritical acceptance by the media, without considering an physical, technical issue, often to score social or political points. This combined with the student's teachers and others not doing their own homework. The 'technology' people on many of the websites apparently don't have the skill to see the problem here - they are revealed as simply tech users, and should not be seen as authorities on understanding technology. I'd expect that for some sites (gizmodo) which just about shiny toys, but others...a real shame. In a similar vein, many posters have interpreted any attempt to point out problems with the research as an attack on (1) the wisdom of children, (2) nature as superior to the artificial, and (3) lone geniuses out-doing evil corporations and smug experts. The answer is (4) none of the above. I suspect the kid won't suffer any long-term effect, will in fact may be spurred to more cool ideas (that work). But he's not the issue - the public and media are. As storytelling, the solar tree is perfect myth for the zeitgeist - too bad it doesn't work! Thanks for this amazing post – I agree, much clearer (and online) compared to the more elaborate analysis at capacity factor. It’s going to be great fun in my quantitative literacy class.

I take your first point as meaning that trees have to optimize more than solar energy collection. So, trees have lots of little, translucent leaves are a result of the multi-optimization. Leaves aren’t a good as a single big pane constantly angled to the light, but this has other problems for living things (e.g. trees don’t have gimbals). A solar panel may be optimized for one thing, and so this is a case where bio-mimicry is not a good choice.

Overall, the whole story, critique, and reaction to critique is a great way to show students critical thinking, as opposed to “magical” thinking. The problem is definitely not Aidan – I remember having similar ‘neat’ but incorrect ideas when I was that age – (e.g., why not just hook generators to motors for eternal power or bounce one light beam off another to make 3d objects). The issue here is uncritical acceptance by the media, without considering an physical, technical issue, often to score social or political points. This combined with the student’s teachers and others not doing their own homework.

The ‘technology’ people on many of the websites apparently don’t have the skill to see the problem here – they are revealed as simply tech users, and should not be seen as authorities on understanding technology. I’d expect that for some sites (gizmodo) which just about shiny toys, but others…a real shame.

In a similar vein, many posters have interpreted any attempt to point out problems with the research as an attack on (1) the wisdom of children, (2) nature as superior to the artificial, and (3) lone geniuses out-doing evil corporations and smug experts. The answer is (4) none of the above.

I suspect the kid won’t suffer any long-term effect, will in fact may be spurred to more cool ideas (that work). But he’s not the issue – the public and media are. As storytelling, the solar tree is perfect myth for the zeitgeist – too bad it doesn’t work!

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Aidan Dwyer Solar News Gets Reality Check | EarthTechling http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-339 Aidan Dwyer Solar News Gets Reality Check | EarthTechling Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:13:36 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-339 [...] The Atlantic Wire. “This is where bad science starts,” headlines an exhaustive, nearly 4,000-word takedown of Aidan (and, even more pointedly, the media who grabbed his story and ran with it) on the No [...] [...] The Atlantic Wire. “This is where bad science starts,” headlines an exhaustive, nearly 4,000-word takedown of Aidan (and, even more pointedly, the media who grabbed his story and ran with it) on the No [...]

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Tomas http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-338 Tomas Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:07:54 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-338 I agree with what you say except for the first point. You say "trees have developed a pattern that give them the minimum necessary amount of sunlight exposure to survive long enough to reproduce". It's not like they look for the minimum sunlight exposure required, but that they try to survive even in minimum exposure. So if you are trying to do the least to achieve your goal, that ,in terms of efficiency, means you are increasing (maximizing), not decreasing. Im not saying this disproves what you say, I just think the first point doesn't add up to your point. I agree with what you say except for the first point. You say “trees have developed a pattern that give them the minimum necessary amount of sunlight exposure to survive long enough to reproduce”. It’s not like they look for the minimum sunlight exposure required, but that they try to survive even in minimum exposure. So if you are trying to do the least to achieve your goal, that ,in terms of efficiency, means you are increasing (maximizing), not decreasing.

Im not saying this disproves what you say, I just think the first point doesn’t add up to your point.

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Caroline http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-337 Caroline Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:06:21 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-337 Hey, you stated in a much more direct way what I was trying to communicate, thanks, I will recommend your site to my friends. My blog: rachat de credits <a href="http://www.rachatdecredit.net" rel="nofollow">www.rachatdecredit.net</a> Hey, you stated in a much more direct way what I was trying to communicate, thanks, I will recommend your site to my friends.

My blog:
rachat de credits http://www.rachatdecredit.net

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Dan http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Dan Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:09:10 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-336 You're kidding right? >American Museum of Natural History, Popular Science, The Atlantic Wire, Slashdot, or Gizmodo That's clearly a consensus... Don't you freaking deniers know that this is how science works now? Get with the program. You’re kidding right?

>American Museum of Natural History, Popular Science, The Atlantic Wire, Slashdot, or Gizmodo

That’s clearly a consensus…

Don’t you freaking deniers know that this is how science works now?

Get with the program.

]]> Comment on This is where bad science starts by Oboroten http://blog.mrzach.com/2011/08/this-is-where-bad-science-starts/comment-page-1/#comment-335 Oboroten Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:53:49 +0000 http://blog.mrzach.com/?p=174#comment-335 You have forgotten path radiance & scattering. On the picture of his backyard you can see that that the "tree" is near the wall - that can be the reason for the result you try to say is impossible :) You have forgotten path radiance & scattering. On the picture of his backyard you can see that that the “tree” is near the wall – that can be the reason for the result you try to say is impossible :)

]]>