Poll: The jmog math/science topic thread...except biology, screw biology

    Poll

Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:18 AM

Ok, since justin was begging for new threads, I decided to create one on the areas I am fairly well versed in. 

I will not allow/discuss anything political. I can discuss climate change (most controversial science topic I can think of) but will stick to science and not opinion/politics in that one.

 

So, I can do this one of two ways. I present a topic I think is interesting and give the science/math behind it first then answer questions?

Or, just start with questions that have ever bothered you and you wondered how things "work"?

If its physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc its all fair game. I am not/was not very good at biology, so I know "enough" but probably not much more than the rest of you.

If you want a background so you know what I am "capable" of discussing/explaining here goes:

BS in Chemical Engineering (think an even mixture of chemistry and physics with heat transfer, fluid flows, etc).
BS in Applied Mathematics (everything from computer programming to solve math/engineering problems to modeling real world situations with math equations)

MS in Chemical Engineering

Taught college level calculus and pre-calc classes while working on my masters in ChE.

Have worked the last 20 years directly in industrial R&D and furnace design to help efficiencies and emission lowering from large scale combustion systems (industrial furnaces).

 

So, I will add a quick poll to see if anyone is more interested in topics of my choice or just scientifically answer your questions (like, the science behind a curve ball)

Ad

  • Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:27 AM
    posted by jmog

    Ok, since justin was begging for new threads, I decided to create one on the areas I am fairly well versed in. 

    I will not allow/discuss anything political. I can discuss climate change (most controversial science topic I can think of) but will stick to science and not opinion/politics in that one.

     

    So, I can do this one of two ways. I present a topic I think is interesting and give the science/math behind it first then answer questions?

    Or, just start with questions that have ever bothered you and you wondered how things "work"?

    If its physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc its all fair game. I am not/was not very good at biology, so I know "enough" but probably not much more than the rest of you.

    If you want a background so you know what I am "capable" of discussing/explaining here goes:

    BS in Chemical Engineering (think an even mixture of chemistry and physics with heat transfer, fluid flows, etc).
    BS in Applied Mathematics (everything from computer programming to solve math/engineering problems to modeling real world situations with math equations)

    MS in Chemical Engineering

    Taught college level calculus and pre-calc classes while working on my masters in ChE.

    Have worked the last 20 years directly in industrial R&D and furnace design to help efficiencies and emission lowering from large scale combustion systems (industrial furnaces).

     

    So, I will add a quick poll to see if anyone is more interested in topics of my choice or just scientifically answer your questions (like, the science behind a curve ball)


    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:27 AM

    I would just like to say DAMN, on your education background.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:29 AM
    posted by justincredible


    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:32 AM
    posted by iclfan2

    I would just like to say DAMN, on your education background.

    Thanks, I would love to say I really worked hard at it, but to be 100% honest I was given a God given talent in math/science and it always came easy to me.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:34 AM
    posted by jmog

    Thanks, I would love to say I really worked hard at it, but to be 100% honest I was given a God given talent in math/science and it always came easy to me.

    I actually set out to major in math (be an actuary or something), but my first semester in college the Honors Calc teacher was a complete fuck who wanted us to teach ourselves and just use class to review, and I don't work like that. So math ended quickly and went into accounting which is blah.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 11:45 AM

     

    Have been interested in the development of wave energy; where are we on this energy source; will it ever be able to be harnessed in a substantial way, etc..etc..

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 12:34 PM
    posted by QuakerOats

     

    Have been interested in the development of wave energy; where are we on this energy source; will it ever be able to be harnessed in a substantial way, etc..etc..

    The basic science behind wave energy was understood back in the 1700s. Take the oscillatory motion of waves and harness the energy. 

     

    Think about an internal combustion in a car. The heat from combustion drives pistons up and down creating a cyclical motion that is transfered into mechanical energy. The mechanical energy then is transferred to electrical energy through the alternator (rotate a magnet around an electrical coil it generates electricity).

     

    The wave energy works in a similar way, just without combustion driving the cyclical motion the natural wave motion does.

    See diagram below:

    Powerbuoy.jpg

    The float acts as the piston in the car, the spar/heavy plate acts as the alternator in the car. The substrate collects the power and transmits it to "land" or wherever the energy is needed.

     

    A few wave farms exist, a couple off the cost of the UK, Portugal had one but shut it down due to the 2008/2009 economic collapse. 

     

    The benefits/problems part of the discussion.

     

    Wave energy sounds like a GREAT idea. Its not wind that requires actual wind to blow. Its not solar that requires it to be a "sunny" day (solar is great in Arizona, terrible in Ohio). 71% of the Earth's surface is covered in ocean and unless the moon blows up, the waves will always be there.

    Its renewable, doesn't emit any emissions at all (save for the emissions emitted during fabrication of the equipment).

     

    The biggest downside to wave energy is the it is highly unknown how it would affect local marine life. Would it cause no problems at all or would it create havoc among the local marine life ecosystems (like I said above, I have biology, so here is where I stop).

     

    There is the same "eye-sore" problem that wind mills have, if too close to shore it could cause problems for the local tourism economy, etc.

     

    The technology is there, the biggest "losses" to make it less efficient is in the transmission lines going back to the "mainland" as underwater lines have larger losses than lines through the air. So you want the wave energy harvesting systems to be far away from shore to get higher waves (more energy) and create less of an eye sore for tourism, but then you have large transmission losses as it is sent back to the main land.

    The major thing stopping this becoming a HUGE "green" energy is honestly government, typically local, stopping it due to tourism concerns as well as the transmission losses coming back to the main land. If the transmission losses, and material used in the transmission lines, can be made to be more efficient then I see this technology "exploding" in the next 10-20 years as long as the marine ecosystem/life isn't screwed up by it.

     

    This is a LOT better green energy solution than wind, solar, corn to ethanol, etc. None of those are real/good solutions long term. 

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 12:38 PM

    Nuclear to solve climate change. Yes or no? Why are the biggest climate change alarmists so anti-nuclear?

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 12:55 PM
    posted by justincredible

    Nuclear to solve climate change. Yes or no? Why are the biggest climate change alarmists so anti-nuclear?

    Nuclear is by far the best option for energy that we have right now. There is no question about this. It releases zero CO2 (other than the CO2 created in manufacturing the plants in the first place).

     

    Nuclear is clean, the nuclear waste is not as bad to dispose of as the public/people believe it is. France is nearly 100% nuclear power right now. The U.S. absolutely should follow suit.

     

    Nuclear plants are "scary" due to Chernobyl and Fukushima which is the BIGGEST reason that most 1st world countries haven't gone "full nuclear".


    Chernobyl was a disaster caused by terrible control implementation.

     

    Fukushima should be used and seen as a reason TO move to nuclear. A freaking tsunami hit a nuclear power plant and not a single person died from it. No adverse effects from pregnancies (one of the major concerns with radiation is fetus development) etc.

     

    There were obvious takeaways and safety protocol changes, but a plant was hit by a tsunami that was about 60 feet high, an tsunami that killed over 2,000 people, and no one died from the plant having a couple melt downs in reactors.

     

    That is a serious safety "win" when it comes to the safety of nuclear power plants.

     

    Yes, nuclear could absolutely help with climate change. Politics is why nuclear hasn't been happening as "fast" as it could/should be.

     

    I won't get into the mindset of why those that are really into saving the planet from climate change are against nuclear. I have no idea and won't speculate on a non-political thread. 

     

    Sorry, I didn't go much into the science of nuclear fission reactors, if you want I can as well as the "heavy water" used in the cooling of them.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 1:26 PM

    Can you tease out the Question 6 math problem?

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 1:39 PM

    Why did the chicken cross the road?

     

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 1:42 PM
    posted by QuakerOats

    Why did the chicken cross the road?

    That's none of your damn business. Is he being detained?

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 2:14 PM
    posted by O-Trap

    Can you tease out the Question 6 math problem?

    I should have said "NO MATH PROOFS" but I will post a link to explain it.

     

    God I hate math proofs...I did well in those classes but refuse to do it "for fun".

     

    Ever since my first day of Advanced Calculus 1 when we were told we had to forget EVERYTHING we had ever learned about math...and we then had to PROVE that 0 times any number is actually 0.

     

    I promised myself I would never do that for fun. 

    I apologize but math proofs are terrible and suck.

     

    Here's a link to explain the question you asked...

     

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 2:18 PM

    Wow, what a fucking nerd!

     

    Regarding chemical engineering. Let's say you're just getting into the field, BS in chem engineers. wtf do you actually aim for to get a job in the field? Is masters a must? 

    Some background, my gf has a BS in chemical engineers. Now works as a mech engineer (HVAC mostly). She went that route because way more opportunities and she had an in at the firm, but she doesn't love it. I'm very good as finding job leads, recruiters, etc. In MY field. Hers? I'm completely clueless.

    Basically looking for an ideal career trajectory in that field.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 2:24 PM
    posted by justincredible

    Nuclear to solve climate change. Yes or no? Why are the biggest climate change alarmists so anti-nuclear?

    Because various problems with nuclear are real and the "existential crisis" of climate change is not.

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 2:30 PM
    posted by jmog

    I should have said "NO MATH PROOFS" but I will post a link to explain it.

     

    God I hate math proofs...I did well in those classes but refuse to do it "for fun".

     

    Ever since my first day of Advanced Calculus 1 when we were told we had to forget EVERYTHING we had ever learned about math...and we then had to PROVE that 0 times any number is actually 0.

     

    I promised myself I would never do that for fun. 

    I apologize but math proofs are terrible and suck.

     

    Here's a link to explain the question you asked...

     

    Well shit.  I've seen that video, and a few others on the topic.

    Guess I shouldn't ask about a proof for the Monty Ball Problem then, huh?  I understand that one, but I'm not sure I could tease out the proof.

     

     

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 3:02 PM
    posted by O-Trap

    Well shit.  I've seen that video, and a few others on the topic.

    Guess I shouldn't ask about a proof for the Monty Ball Problem then, huh?  I understand that one, but I'm not sure I could tease out the proof.

     

     

    Math proofs, even though I did them to get A’s in those classes, absolutely suck. 
     

    Anyone that likes them should be in a mental institution. 
     

    And I LOVE math. It’s my favorite subject. 
     

    But my God why should I have to prove how I got the solution if it is right/works!?

     

    Math proofs and the people that like them are evil I believe. 
     

    /end rant

    /end soap box

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 3:03 PM
    posted by jmog

    Math proofs, even though I did them to get A’s in those classes, absolutely suck. 
     

    Anyone that likes them should be in a mental institution. 
     

    And I LOVE math. It’s my favorite subject. 
     

    But my God why should I have to prove how I got the solution if it is right/works!?

     

    Math proofs and the people that like them are evil I believe. 
     

    /end rant

    /end soap box

    Spoken to someone who actually likes them and is fascinated by them.  ;)

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 3:07 PM
    posted by QuakerOats

    Why did the chicken cross the road?

     

    He heard the ref was blowing fowls. 
     

     

    Also, you guys are really intelligent. I’m impressed. 

    Thu, Apr 2, 2020 3:07 PM
    posted by Automatik

    Wow, what a fucking nerd!

     

    Regarding chemical engineering. Let's say you're just getting into the field, BS in chem engineers. wtf do you actually aim for to get a job in the field? Is masters a must? 

    Some background, my gf has a BS in chemical engineers. Now works as a mech engineer (HVAC mostly). She went that route because way more opportunities and she had an in at the firm, but she doesn't love it. I'm very good as finding job leads, recruiters, etc. In MY field. Hers? I'm completely clueless.

    Basically looking for an ideal career trajectory in that field.

    A masters is not required for a career in chemical engineering at all. 

    Matter of fact, the best way to go career wise for engineering, if you want to make $$, is to get an MBA. An MBA mixed with a BS in engineering is like career gold for upper management. 
     

    But no, a masters is not required at all. Most career chemical engineers make 6 figures without a masters once they get 10 or so years experience under their belt.  

    PM me if you need a good recruiter (assuming Midwest/PA/NY area) for engineers. 

    Ad