The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forums

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe => Podcast Episodes => Topic started by: Steven Novella on December 17, 2016, 07:53:11 AM

Title: Episode #597
Post by: Steven Novella on December 17, 2016, 07:53:11 AM
Forgotten Superheroes of Science: Barbara Liskov; News Items: Trust of Scientists and GMOs, Cryogenic Energy Storage, Deorbiting Space Junk; What’s the Word: In Situ; Your Questions and E-mails: Premium Gas, Porn Follow Up; Science or Fiction
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: dorbie on December 17, 2016, 01:57:46 PM
John Glenn was grounded after his first space flight because the administration did not want to risk killing their space hero. It was not his choice, for his heroism he was made the victim of administrative cowardice.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 17, 2016, 03:24:27 PM
Since the vast bulk of edible GE crops are maize, soy and rape (and some sugar beet), one could argue that these crops are not good for human health, GE notwithstanding.

Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: fuzzyMarmot on December 17, 2016, 06:30:02 PM
One of the coolest variants of Cara's word of the week is in silico, which refers to an experiment performed using computer simulation.

The response to last week's interview with Marty Klein left a big question unanswered: Why interview this guy at all? What does he have to do with science? I still think he seems like a self-help guru who is really good at self-promotion and selling books. Am I missing the science angle? Does he have peer-reviewed research?

Creating reservoirs to store energy has major environmental disadvantages, including methane emissions:
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/02/biosci.biw117.short (http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/02/biosci.biw117.short)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/28/scientists-just-found-yet-another-way-that-humans-are-creating-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.e85ca76f0d17 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/28/scientists-just-found-yet-another-way-that-humans-are-creating-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.e85ca76f0d17)
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: arthwollipot on December 18, 2016, 02:15:26 AM
The response to last week's interview with Marty Klein left a big question unanswered: Why interview this guy at all? What does he have to do with science? I still think he seems like a self-help guru who is really good at self-promotion and selling books. Am I missing the science angle? Does he have peer-reviewed research?

I thought about this some since posting pretty much the same question in last show's thread. Basically as far as I can tell, it's the idea that some subjects aren't commonly given skeptical thought - there is a lot of received wisdom, pop psychology and outright woo in the porn industry, and that's why it's appropriate to give it a thorough skeptical examination.

Unfortunately I don't think this single interview was that.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Eternally Learning on December 18, 2016, 02:44:40 AM
In principle, I am fine with the subject matter being covered and if this guy is a crank or an expert, having a big name on for an interview makes sense too.  The main problem for me is that there was no introduction to it at all.  No context given for his book.  No Bone Fides given for him.  Also, very little of his arguments as stated had any kind of evidence to back them up and seemed very assumption based.  I think Steve's comments this episode about how he failed to explain to the listeners things which he knew of via his research and explained some of the responses Klein gave which seemed off, hit the nail on the head for the whole thing.  I think he just forgot to include us in his line of thinking about the subject and the man.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: 2397 on December 18, 2016, 03:53:29 AM
John Glenn was grounded after his first space flight because the administration did not want to risk killing their space hero. It was not his choice, for his heroism he was made the victim of administrative cowardice.

I was surprised they didn't know that. If you had asked me where I learned that John Glenn was grounded as a political decision, I might as well have said the SGU, for all the astronomy related material they have.

Edit: It might be speculation that it was a political decision, since there doesn't seem to be an official statement about it.

Edit2: And there's the ad;

Steve: "Well everyone, let's take a quick break from our show to talk about our sponsor this week, [redacted]"
Cara: "Yeah you know, we talk about it a lot, and that's because we love it so much"

That's where it all falls apart. If anyone was looking for my input on how skeptics could improve doing ads.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 18, 2016, 11:23:11 AM
I was surprised that they thought that "in situ" and "in vitro" and "in vivo" were not commonly-known terms. If indeed they are not commonly known, then I am even more surprised. Are people really so ignorant that most don't know these terms?

Regarding premium gas: They left out one interesting bit of information: Premium gas has less energy per unit volume than regular gas. A price you pay for a high-compression, high-power engine is that you pay more per gallon and get less energy.

We're never going to colonize the stars because long before we have the necessary technology, the Earth is going to be surrounded by an impenetrable shell of orbiting space junk. On a related note, the answer to Fermi's paradox is that technological civilizations end up hidden and imprisoned by their orbiting space junk.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 18, 2016, 11:27:12 AM
I beat all the rogues! I got Science or Fiction right! I was stressed and depressed in college and did poorly, so I figured that one was the fiction. I get SoF right about one time in ten or fifteen (considerably worse than chance, for whatever that's worth) so getting it right is a big deal for me. And getting it right when all the rogues got it wrong, is pretty special. I'll brag about that any time it happens.  :dance:
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 18, 2016, 11:50:10 AM
Since the vast bulk of edible GE crops are maize, soy and rape (and some sugar beet), one could argue that these crops are not good for human health, GE notwithstanding.

I would argue that there's nothing inherently bad about maize, soy, rapeseed, or even sugar. The problems arise when we eat too much of them. Too much of anything is harmful.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 18, 2016, 11:52:48 AM
The Rogues are still not worried about (at least on air) about the looming anti-scemce US administration.  I guess I'll just have to rely on other sceptical podcasts like the FFRF, Sam Harris, Rationally Speaking, More or Less...  whatever, to keep up with radically changing face of science in the US.

Since the US is so influential and starting at such a publicly low base of scientific awareness, this change is alarming.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 18, 2016, 11:54:08 AM
For one, Daniel, http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-sugar-killing-us-1481303447

All things in moderation, balanced diet, energy in, energy out... all crap, really.  Humans have become fat, weak and sick following tis advice.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 18, 2016, 01:35:11 PM
For one, Daniel, http://www.wsj.com/articles/is-sugar-killing-us-1481303447

All things in moderation, balanced diet, energy in, energy out... all crap, really.  Humans have become fat, weak and sick following tis advice.

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: 2397 on December 18, 2016, 03:01:25 PM
We're never going to colonize the stars because long before we have the necessary technology, the Earth is going to be surrounded by an impenetrable shell of orbiting space junk. On a related note, the answer to Fermi's paradox is that technological civilizations end up hidden and imprisoned by their orbiting space junk.

Just have to invent cryosleep so that we can wait out the decaying orbits for a few centuries. Or maybe someone decides to take over the planet while the world sleeps.

The Rogues are still not worried about (at least on air) about the looming anti-scemce US administration.  I guess I'll just have to rely on other sceptical podcasts like the FFRF, Sam Harris, Rationally Speaking, More or Less...  whatever, to keep up with radically changing face of science in the US.

Since the US is so influential and starting at such a publicly low base of scientific awareness, this change is alarming.

It could become a lot less influential.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: fuzzyMarmot on December 18, 2016, 03:03:05 PM
The Rogues are still not worried about (at least on air) about the looming anti-scemce US administration.  I guess I'll just have to rely on other sceptical podcasts like the FFRF, Sam Harris, Rationally Speaking, More or Less...  whatever, to keep up with radically changing face of science in the US.

Since the US is so influential and starting at such a publicly low base of scientific awareness, this change is alarming.

Word. I'm with you on feeling disappointment about this. I've given up hope that they will tackle these topics. I still love the SGU, but now I listen to it as a diversion/entertainment. I used to listen primarily because I viewed it as a leading voice of an activist movement. I don't want to be too negative about their choices. I still really enjoy the podcast, and am grateful that the SGU puts so much work into it.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: fuzzyMarmot on December 18, 2016, 03:12:43 PM
In principle, I am fine with the subject matter being covered and if this guy is a crank or an expert, having a big name on for an interview makes sense too.  The main problem for me is that there was no introduction to it at all.  No context given for his book.  No Bone Fides given for him.  Also, very little of his arguments as stated had any kind of evidence to back them up and seemed very assumption based.  I think Steve's comments this episode about how he failed to explain to the listeners things which he knew of via his research and explained some of the responses Klein gave which seemed off, hit the nail on the head for the whole thing.  I think he just forgot to include us in his line of thinking about the subject and the man.

I'd like to think that Steve's explanation correctly summarize's the situation: Steve was so familiar with Klein's scientific credentials and evidenced-based research, he forgot to mention any of it in the interview. Perhaps. But the more I read about Klein, the less I believe that is the case. I still haven't seen peer-reviewed work from Klein.

I re-listened to episode 430, the previous time the SGU interviewed him. There was no pushback against his views, and no evidence to support them. Klein said some things that I found a little appalling, using the term "henpecked", and suggesting that the typical Swedish man wants to have extramarital affairs. I also noted that Klein had a controversy with Skepchick, an organization that I support and trust.

I hope we can get further clarification about the choice to give this guy a platform.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 18, 2016, 03:18:50 PM

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think your body is a bomb calorimeter and a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Nobody is violating the laws of physics, but many are overlooking how biology works.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Eternally Learning on December 18, 2016, 04:15:00 PM
The Rogues are still not worried about (at least on air) about the looming anti-scemce US administration.  I guess I'll just have to rely on other sceptical podcasts like the FFRF, Sam Harris, Rationally Speaking, More or Less...  whatever, to keep up with radically changing face of science in the US.

Since the US is so influential and starting at such a publicly low base of scientific awareness, this change is alarming.

I feel like they are waiting to address it until something actually happens.  Honestly, the Trump administration could take over the podcast if they addressed every news item Trump generates and at this point, while what he's done is disturbing, nothing has really actually occurred to comment on.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: The Latinist on December 18, 2016, 04:39:12 PM
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: arthwollipot on December 19, 2016, 04:35:39 AM
I was surprised that they thought that "in situ" and "in vitro" and "in vivo" were not commonly-known terms. If indeed they are not commonly known, then I am even more surprised. Are people really so ignorant that most don't know these terms?

I think a good proportion of people have probably heard of in vitro fertilisation.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: smudge on December 19, 2016, 07:25:07 AM
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.

How one defines 'issues' and 'politics' is rather fuzzy and open to interpretation. The idea that one can wait until an anti science conspiracy theorist actually imposes a policy rather that challenge the campaign, the appointments, and the arguments given, seems naive in the extreme. It also seems inconsistent and illogical in terms of the way the SGU gang might rail against the appointment of an alt med practitioner if he were assigned a position of power. Would the argument then be to wait until fake treatments had been prescribed before objecting? Should we wait for deaths? Of course not. Should one wait for creationists to impose an anti science teaching programme in schools before challenging it? Or should we seek to stop them having power over science education in the first place? Clearly the latter.

I understand that the SGU gang don't want to be biased in terms of political party. That's sensible. But to duck politics altogether is not possible. To ignore politics is itself political. To pretend not to have a stance is to take a stance. It is simply a stance that makes one either a complicit bystander or an irrelevance.



Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2016, 07:52:15 AM

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Sawyer on December 19, 2016, 10:06:54 AM
I am very much in favor of their approach, here.  They said from the start that they would address issues, not politics, and that's what they're doing. Presidential appointments are politics, and they are something that, like it or not, the President gets to do.  We could go all-in opposing any one of these candidates and expend a whole lot of energy on defeating one, but in the end Trump's just going to appoint another just as bad.  There will be plenty of opportunities for calls to genuine action, but for now there's really nothing happening but politics.

How one defines 'issues' and 'politics' is rather fuzzy and open to interpretation. The idea that one can wait until an anti science conspiracy theorist actually imposes a policy rather that challenge the campaign, the appointments, and the arguments given, seems naive in the extreme. It also seems inconsistent and illogical in terms of the way the SGU gang might rail against the appointment of an alt med practitioner if he were assigned a position of power. Would the argument then be to wait until fake treatments had been prescribed before objecting? Should we wait for deaths? Of course not. Should one wait for creationists to impose an anti science teaching programme in schools before challenging it? Or should we seek to stop them having power over science education in the first place? Clearly the latter.

I understand that the SGU gang don't want to be biased in terms of political party. That's sensible. But to duck politics altogether is not possible. To ignore politics is itself political. To pretend not to have a stance is to take a stance. It is simply a stance that makes one either a complicit bystander or an irrelevance.

I'm 100% okay with the SGU having a reactive rather than proactive approach to dealing with the intersection of science and politics.  If that is how they think they can represent skepticism in the most honest and interesting way to listeners, so be it.  What is absurd is when the skeptical movement as a whole insists it wants to have actual clout in the political process through representatives, conventional news outlets, or lobbying, and then does a 180 by stating "oh well we don't want to talk these specific political questions just yet, we'll deal with them later."  Okay, then you've just admitted where your priories lie, and they clearly don't involve significant changes to the political process.  One of Dr. Novella's 'sister' websites, ScienceBasedMedicine, seems to understand this, and contributers took the initiative to form a separate organization (the Society for Science Based Medicine) specifically devoted to taking action rather than just writing about current medical topics.  I'm still doubtful that they have the muscle or willpower to deal with the underlying ignorance and cynicism about healthcare in American politics, but they at least decided that sitting on the sidelines wasn't the smartest play.

Again, I'm happy to listen to the podcast with zero mention of Trump for another few months.  But whenever Steve or any other Rogues muses about their disdain for politicians and the need for a more rational political process, I'm going to continue rolling my eyes.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lucek on December 19, 2016, 10:11:16 AM
If i remember correctly nasa didnt want to send glen back up. They had a narional hero and a symble and was too risky to give him the 2nd nod. Its like the flying aces durring ww1. They were all over the head lines untill they died
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 19, 2016, 11:40:47 AM

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
You have to burn all the calories you absorb, which depending on a variety of other factors can be different from the number of calories released by burning the food and measuring the heat.

Even when we just focus on caloric balance and weight gain/loss, the kinds of foods you eat can affect the absorption and utilization of calories in more complex ways than might be expected by simply counting calories and keeping track of the average amount of energy various exercise activities require.
Title: Episode #597
Post by: PatrickG on December 19, 2016, 11:47:10 AM
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

This makes batteries such a great option for energy storage vs hydrogen. It's 80%-90%  versus <50%. Only for that reason alone  hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea.


Sent from my iPhone
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2016, 11:58:13 AM

That's only because we eat so much of it. And calories in, calories out, is physics. Conservation of energy. You cannot gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn; and you cannot lose weight unless you burn more calories than you eat. Anything else is magic.

If you think [that] a calorie of broccoli, a calorie of steak and a calorie of coke are the same, I'd say you are lost.

Straw man. I never said the foods are the same.

There are many differences in foods and their nutritional content. And there is much more to health than just weight. We need a lot of different nutrients for health. But to lose weight you have to burn all the calories you eat and a few more.
You have to burn all the calories you absorb, which depending on a variety of other factors can be different from the number of calories released by burning the food and measuring the heat.

Even when we just focus on caloric balance and weight gain/loss, the kinds of foods you eat can affect the absorption and utilization of calories in more complex ways than might be expected by simply counting calories and keeping track of the average amount of energy various exercise activities require.

I sent an email to the SGU asking about exactly this issue, after a friend of mine argued that absorption and ingestion are different numbers. To my surprise, I got a personal reply from Dr. Novella. His comment was that this is true, but that the difference is small.

Further, I don't think that the medical community is so naive as to count the calories in, for example, cellulose, which some animals can digest but humans cannot. Individuals differ in their basal metabolism, and in their level of exercise, and both of these count in the equation. But you still have to burn the calories you absorb, and any difference between this and the calories you eat is not large enough to make much of a difference.

I believe the woo community has a lot of notions that eating certain foods will prevent you from absorbing the calories, but except for materials we know are not digestible, this idea doesn't fly.

I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2016, 12:11:07 PM
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

This makes batteries such a great option for energy storage vs hydrogen. It's 80%-90%  versus <50%. Only for that reason alone  hydrogen powered cars are a bad idea.

Agreed.

I have a hydrogen-powered car. Actually, a toy car. It's big enough for a mouse to ride on it, if you had a trained mouse. It uses a small solar array to produce hydrogen by electrolysis in a bi-directional fuel cell. Then you switch the wires and it runs around the floor using the hydrogen. It takes a long time under bright light to make enough H2 to run for a short distance. And it's so weak that it has difficulty on carpet. It really prefers a wood or linoleum floor. Forget trying to go uphill. The fuel cell is very expensive for its power, and I gather that fuel cells have a short life. Of course, you could burn H2 in an internal combustion engine. But H2 is dangerous to handle and store. I think there are safer fuels that could be produced synthetically. Such fuels will remain necessary for aircraft, but for cars in the 200-mile range, I think batteries are the best solution.

Caveat: I'm biased because I love my electric car.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 19, 2016, 01:24:11 PM
I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Given how many other areas of science doctors don't know as much about as they should (according to Steve's own accounts), I'm not sure why you are so confident about their level of understanding of nutrition science, even for doctors whose specialization is far removed from nutrition.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2016, 02:13:22 PM
I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Given how many other areas of science doctors don't know as much about as they should (according to Steve's own accounts), I'm not sure why you are so confident about their level of understanding of nutrition science, even for doctors whose specialization is far removed from nutrition.

It's a relative thing: I trust my doctor to be informed about nutritional science far more than someone who has picked out an iconoclast who claims everybody else is full of beans, and insists that that person is THE authority.

I also trust mainstream medical institutions like Mayo Clinic, more than I trust a web site that someone has decided is more authoritative than the consensus of the medical community. As we've learned from the SGU, individual studies are often flawed, leading to people cherry-picking the studies that make their point, and posting them as authoritative. It's necessary to view the entirety of the literature, and there again, medical professionals are more competent to do this than someone just Googling "calories don't matter" and taking the top three hits as Gospel.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Sawyer on December 19, 2016, 02:30:48 PM
I reject the notion that doctors, as a class, are too stupid or too stubborn to look at all the evidence, including the evidence from nutrition science, and analyze it more accurately than untrained laypersons.
Given how many other areas of science doctors don't know as much about as they should (according to Steve's own accounts), I'm not sure why you are so confident about their level of understanding of nutrition science, even for doctors whose specialization is far removed from nutrition.

This would be a fine point if we were living in a vacuum and didn't have previous exposure to the controversies between doctors, nutrition scientists, and diet gurus.  The "doctors don't know anything about nutrition" trope is something that is not coming predominantly from the nutrition science community.  Sure they may complain from time to time about ignorance of their chosen field just like any other medical specialists, but their complaints are dwarfed by those coming from the LCHF crowd, vegetarian activists, cancer quacks, etc.  Even if there are real gaps in doctors' knowledge that need to be addressed, it's not going to solved by getting doctors to blindly accept the opinions of a minority of nutrition experts.  Getting the actual research community to all be on the same page about diet has to be a prerequisite for instituting new education standards for doctors.  This does not appear to be something that people whining about nutrition ignorance are very good at accomplishing.  They are trying to do an end-run around other nutrition researchers, and I refuse to aid them in this quest my employing their favorite catch phrases.

I won't pretend to know more about nutrition than our resident LCHF cheerleaders, but I'm still fairly confident that my cousin who got a Ph. D. in childhood nutrition from UC Davis knows what she's talking about, and is not a paid shill for Big Carbohydrate.  And yet somehow our family Christmases are not filled with her ranting about dumbass doctors poisoning her baby with sugar...
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 19, 2016, 02:40:53 PM
You'll note that I have not said anything here about LCHF, and if you've paid attention to the thread about that, you'll have noticed that I am in fact generally opposed to the position lonely moa espouses there.

I'm simply pointing out that "calories in minus calories out" is, while technically true (and complete), a more complex equation than is generally acknowledged by the "it's simple physics" crowd. Food types may not affect absorption and metabolism as much as some quacks claim, but they do have an effect nonetheless, as do differences between individuals in how their bodies use nutrients and store fat. Statements like "this pint of ice cream would be burned off by walking for 5 hours" are not true universally, even for the same pint, because people react to the ice cream and to walking differently. (For example, someone who's lactose intolerant enough to shit the whole pint out probably gets somewhat less than 1000 calories from it.)

"You lose weight by burning more calories than you eat" is to nutrition roughly what "you make money by buying low and selling high" is to playing the stock market.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: The Latinist on December 19, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

That's not round-trip efficiency, though.  For load balancing in a power-grid, you need to be converting from line level AC to battery and back to line-level AC.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 19, 2016, 05:09:41 PM
You'll note that I have not said anything here about LCHF, and if you've paid attention to the thread about that, you'll have noticed that I am in fact generally opposed to the position lonely moa espouses there.

I'm simply pointing out that "calories in minus calories out" is, while technically true (and complete), a more complex equation than is generally acknowledged by the "it's simple physics" crowd. Food types may not affect absorption and metabolism as much as some quacks claim, but they do have an effect nonetheless, as do differences between individuals in how their bodies use nutrients and store fat. Statements like "this pint of ice cream would be burned off by walking for 5 hours" are not true universally, even for the same pint, because people react to the ice cream and to walking differently. (For example, someone who's lactose intolerant enough to shit the whole pint out probably gets somewhat less than 1000 calories from it.)

"You lose weight by burning more calories than you eat" is to nutrition roughly what "you make money by buying low and selling high" is to playing the stock market.

Emphasis mine.

This is another straw man. Nobody is claiming that everyone's metabolism is the same, and nobody is giving figures about exactly how many hours of what kind of exercise will burn off how much ice cream.

The problem is when people claim that it doesn't matter how much you eat because their special diet allows you to eat all the calories you want and still lose weight.

It does matter how much you eat, and the published calorie tables are close enough for practical use. The body needs certain nutrients (with some individual variation) and the body will burn a certain amount of energy (with individual variation for basal metabolism and exercise level). You need to get a well-rounded mix of nutrients to be healthy, and whether you gain or lose weight will depend on that calorie math. There is no magical diet that will allow you to eat an unlimited number of calories without gaining weight. (Though there are drugs, such as amphetamines, that will raise your metabolism and kill your appetite so that you lose weight as they destroy your body.)
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 19, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
The problem is when people claim that it doesn't matter how much you eat because their special diet allows you to eat all the calories you want and still lose weight.
I'm not claiming that, though, so I guess now you're throwing around straw men because you think that's what I did?
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: PatrickG on December 19, 2016, 07:20:57 PM
Steve gave an overview of the options for energy storage: from cryogenic storage, hydrogen to batteries. He mentioned that the round-trip energy efficiency for battery storage is 60-70%.

That is not correct. In fact batteries are much better: they have a round-trip energy efficiency of between 80% and 90%!

It is possible to approximate the battery round trip efficiency from the EPA sticker of a electric car. It's quite simple: A Nissan Leaf EV has a usable battery capacity of 22kWh for an EPA range of 73 miles. So it's net efficiency is 30.6 kWh/100 miles. The EPA rates its gross plug-to-wheel efficiency at 34 kWh/100 miles. The ratio between the two is the round trip efficiency: almost 90%.

The success (cost, CO2 Emissions, range) of electric cars very much depends on a high round-trip energy efficiency. There is a big difference between losing just 10% to heat in the battery and charger vs  over30%. Li-Ion batteries are pretty darn good!

That's not round-trip efficiency, though.  For load balancing in a power-grid, you need to be converting from line level AC to battery and back to line-level AC.

Using batteries for balancing the power grid or for powering the car at technically hardly any different: both require 240AC->DC conversion, up-conversion to ~360V battery voltage and then DC->AC conversion. Synchronous electric motors require AC. So for the overall round trip losses there is no real difference. The conversion and battery losses are all in the overall numbers. Thanks to modern power electronics there is remarkably little loss.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: The Latinist on December 19, 2016, 08:34:00 PM
Here's a DoE assessment of various energy storage technologies and their benefits. It includes not only round-trip efficiencies but capital and ongoing costs, performance curves, and discussions of cycle life where relevant.  I did not see a discussion of environmental impact.  It looks pretty well-researched to me.  They conclude that at the high powers required for load balancing, the round-trip efficiency of Li-ion batteries is about .80, just shy of pumped hydro. But certainly not .90.

http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/pdf/National_Assessment_Storage_PHASE_II_vol_2_final.pdf

It should also be pointed out that cycle life for Ali-ion batteries is severely affected by depth of discharge.  Actually using a significant portion of the charge stored will significantly decrease their useful life.  That makes them more suitable for balancing of temporary load variance than for large-scale storage or time-shifting.
Title: Episode #597
Post by: PatrickG on December 20, 2016, 12:12:59 AM
Thanks for the interesting DOE assessment. Indeed, the lifespan of Li-ion batteries depends on the size of the charge window. laptops and phone phones use 100% but barely survive 2 years. My EV only uses 65% to get an estimated life of over 10 years (3650 cycles). The life-time requirement simply means that longer lasting batteries need to be 20-35% oversized to handle 1 cycle per day without wearing out quickly. The over-sizing has the additional advantage of reducing the current density and with that increasing efficiency.

The report writes: "Li-Ion batteries are very efficient, with dc-dc efficiency in the 0.85-95 range (Rastler 2007) and ac-ac efficiency about 0.85 (Schoenung 2003). For this study, considering the high power of the balancing application, a dc-dc efficiency of 0.8 has been used."

I really don't understand their justification for the choice for a low 80% efficiency. "High power" is a matter of putting more batteries in parallel, and should not affect efficiency. What matters is the current density per Li-Ion cell, and that can be designed such that it optimizes both efficiency and lifespan. High lifespan automatically forces a lower current density.

Since hydro doesn't wear out and can be scaled up it does seems a good long term solution for large scale storage. But it requires a proper geography with mountains.

Another factor is cost. Doing the back-of-the-envelope math of the Tesla powerwall Li-ion home storage it works out to about 7 cents per kWh for the storage. Home solar panels cost ~8-10cents per kWh (assuming 25 years), so it adds up to a generation cost of 24 hour clean energy at ~16 cent/kWh. The storage costs almost as much as the generation.

Compare that to cost of coal power at 2cents per kWh or 3.5 cents/kWh for natural gas. It's clear this does not work without heavy subsidies and government regulation. Fat chance with will work with a climate change denier in charge of the DoE :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 20, 2016, 02:41:09 AM
The problem is when people claim that it doesn't matter how much you eat because their special diet allows you to eat all the calories you want and still lose weight.
I'm not claiming that, though, so I guess now you're throwing around straw men because you think that's what I did?

Eat a high fat low carb diet and you can eat all you want.  It just happens that when one's body gets used to eating that way, one wants to eat less.  Your body isn't stupid, but it is easily tricked by high energy, low nutrient foods to eat too much to maintain a stable weight.  Sugary and high carbohydrate foods were  a boon to our ancestors as they provided lots of calories, but thos foods weren't often available.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: 2397 on December 20, 2016, 02:47:05 AM
Human bodies tend to get stuck on famine preparation-mode.

I wonder what the long term effects would be of engineering that option out.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: AtheistApotheosis on December 20, 2016, 05:30:42 AM
the answer to Fermi's paradox is that technological civilizations end up hidden and imprisoned by their orbiting space junk.

Fermi's paradox is based on a linear view of technological development, projecting current technology into the future in roughly a straight line. It doesn't work because technology does not develop in a linear way, just look at the development of the mobile phone. First, they were the size of a typewriter and powered by a car battery, then they got smaller and smaller and tiny and... then freaking enormous with a built-in PC. Now they convert to VR goggles, GPS navigator, Camera... etc. Clarks three laws state...
   
    1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But there is a fourth law he should have included.

    4. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.

The goals of any technological civilisation should necessarily be greater complexity leading to a technology more complex than naturally evolved organic life. And improved energy efficiency surpassing the efficiency of naturally evolved organisms. If you want an example from science fiction of what an advanced civilisation would look like after a million years of development, the planet Pandora from Avatar. A planet wide fibre optic neural network utilising bio-luminescence, people and animals with built in USB ports. The ability of the natives to upload their consciousness to the living network when near death. And a mineral with ridiculously useful properties that don't occur in nature and exists on only one known planet.

Space junk is not as big a problem as you might think. a few thousand solar powered drones would solve the problem in a few years. You just need a refuelling ship parked in orbit to refuel the drones after each mission slowly working its way around the earth. You could even recycle the space junk to supply orbiting space stations with construction material. Every problem has a million plus solutions, and one or two hundred that may work and a few that are practical and three or four that will be tried and one or two that will become the standard.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 20, 2016, 08:45:50 AM
Science fiction is like Nostradamus. In hindsight you can find things that seem to be accurate predictions, but for making actual predictions or finding useful explanations it is useless. Fun, but useless.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: AtheistApotheosis on December 20, 2016, 09:37:20 AM
Creating reservoirs to store energy has major environmental disadvantages, including methane emissions:
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/02/biosci.biw117.short (http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/10/02/biosci.biw117.short)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/28/scientists-just-found-yet-another-way-that-humans-are-creating-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.e85ca76f0d17 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/28/scientists-just-found-yet-another-way-that-humans-are-creating-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.e85ca76f0d17)
Not to mention land loss, erosion, flooding. some of the property losses from the Brisbane floods were partly the result of water release from Wivenhoe Dam. The constant rise and fall of water levels kills vegetation along waters edge which results in erosion and some landslides. Try reaching the water when you have to walk 30 to 40 meters through thick mud up to your waist with a canoe held over your head. Makes for some interesting camping places though. I've gone for a walk along the edge of Advancetown lake and Hinze dam a few times, and its strange to see forests going down and continuing into the lake with trees sticking up out of the water.  Roads down to the waters edge, and when the water is clear enough you can see it continuing down under water. would be an interesting placed to go diving, there are a few houses still down there, deep below the surface.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: AtheistApotheosis on December 21, 2016, 04:43:12 AM
Science fiction is like Nostradamus. In hindsight you can find things that seem to be accurate predictions, but for making actual predictions or finding useful explanations it is useless. Fun, but useless.
Michel de Nostradame, one of the most successful con man in history. Sceptics always underestimate him. An educated man who recognised the repeating pasterns of history, and used that to create the highest probability predictions possible. His predictions read like science fiction with natural and man made disasters. Future technology and politics. After all, his predictions unlike most prophets contained only few religious or fantastical predictions which covered periods safely beyond his own life time. He managed to keep his head in an age where getting a prediction wrong could get you burned at the stake or your head on a spike over the city gates. He made quite a living off the superstitious aristocracy, he was a doctor, all be it a dubious one, a herbalist and alchemist which meant he had a little understanding of biology and chemistry. And probably some understanding of the scientific method. Mind you a lot of his treatments didn't actually work, it involved a lot of leaches and magic pills. I have an old copy of the prophesies of Nostradamus from about 1964 and its interesting to see from that book how many fake Nostradamus predictions there are out there, almost all of them. He also married extremely well.

Science fiction does get a lot of things things right especially authors like Robert A. Heinlein, Gene Roddenberry, Arthur C Clarke and Michael Crichton. Quite often because they inspire scientists to make their ideas reality and some are scientists themselves. Some science fiction is science based and a lot is pure fantasy where there are few rules. Fun, but not necessarily useless.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 21, 2016, 07:16:18 AM
Useless as a means of imagining the future. Certainly useful as fun escapist recreational reading when it is done well. In the age of Kindle (which I love) there's a lot of self-published crap.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 21, 2016, 07:43:17 AM
Useless as a means of predicting the future, maybe, but not as a means of imagining andcconsidering possible futures.

Unless the reader himself lacks all imagination, I suppose.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Ah.hell on December 21, 2016, 09:54:05 AM
Useless as a means of imagining the future. Certainly useful as fun escapist recreational reading when it is done well. In the age of Kindle (which I love) there's a lot of self-published crap.
I kinda hate how easy it is to self publish on account of that.  I need some gate keepers to filter out the poorly disguised marysue fan fiction. 

Aside from that, Sci fi is a broad category.  Some, like star wars is just fantasy in space but there is hard sci-fi which for the most part tries very hard to just extrapolate the future from current science and for the most part, the best sci-fi really just commentary on modern society and not really an attempt to predict the future. 
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 21, 2016, 09:54:36 AM
Useless as a means of predicting the future, maybe, but not as a means of imagining andcconsidering possible futures.

Unless the reader himself lacks all imagination, I suppose.

I have enough imagination of my own that I don't need some pop-culture hack writer creating futures based on magical boxes that violate the laws of physics, for me to imagine possibilities for the future.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Ah.hell on December 21, 2016, 10:04:52 AM
I get not liking Sci-fi, to each their own, but I don't get the animus.  Sure, "the star trek effect" but that just seems like rationalization.  Show me on the action figure where sci-fi touched you.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 21, 2016, 11:53:57 AM
I dislike the mislabeling of fantasy as sci-fi for the same reason that I dislike the mislabeling of homeopathy as medicine. I like sugar, in moderation. I dislike it when people call it medicine. I like fantasy. I dislike it when people call Star Trek "sci-fi" and pretend that it's more "possible" than Lord of the Rings.

I also happen to think that Star Trek was bad writing and bad acting and utterly idiotic in its presumption that on first contact with distant worlds we'd meet English-speaking almost-humans.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Ah.hell on December 21, 2016, 12:22:51 PM
I dislike the mislabeling of fantasy as sci-fi for the same reason that I dislike the mislabeling of homeopathy as medicine. I like sugar, in moderation. I dislike it when people call it medicine. I like fantasy. I dislike it when people call Star Trek "sci-fi" and pretend that it's more "possible" than Lord of the Rings.
Oddly, I agree, I just give Sci-fi a pass on a few common fantastic conceits.  FTL and aliens speaking english for instance.  If the aliens don't speak English all sci-fi fiction with aliens would be a story about learning the aliens language.  That would be especially boring in a weekly TV show.  And despite the fantastic elements, Star Trek is more possible than Lord of the Rings, not much but more.  Star Wars is not, which is why I rankle at Star Wars being described as Sci-fi but not Star Trek.

I also happen to think that Star Trek was bad writing and bad acting and....
Often but they also had some great writing and pretty good acting at times, also unusual at the time for being an optimistic vision of the future, probably why it has such a following more than any other reason.

..and utterly idiotic in its presumption that on first contact with distant worlds we'd meet English-speaking almost-humans.
Thats the equivalent of saying you don't like stage plays because the stage settings aren't realistic.  That was all largely due to the limits of technology and budget available to the studio.  The classic example, the transporter was used because it was cheaper than filming a shuttle landing.  Humans with bad make-up because that was cheaper than filming actual alien aliens.  Its also easier to create characters actual humans can relate to and directors can elicit a performance from. 
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 21, 2016, 02:29:27 PM
Useless as a means of predicting the future, maybe, but not as a means of imagining and considering possible futures.

Unless the reader himself lacks all imagination, I suppose.
I have enough imagination of my own that I don't need some pop-culture hack writer creating futures based on magical boxes that violate the laws of physics, for me to imagine possibilities for the future.
You do realize that not all sci-fi is magical-box sci-fi, right?

There are millions of pages of science fiction that never involves faster-than-light travel (which is the main violation of physics that sci-fi usually includes).

But even outright fantasy can have merit that goes far beyond mere escapism.

Again, I contend that you must simply lack imagination if you are incapable of relating any of the themes and lessons of (soft) science fiction and fantasy to modern life.

You may not personally like stories, but the fact remains that most people relate to stories far more strongly than to base descriptions of facts, and so if you want to reach those people with your political or social or philosophical (or scientific) points, without them feeling like they're in class, you package your points in a narrative.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on December 21, 2016, 03:46:16 PM
Useless as a means of predicting the future, maybe, but not as a means of imagining and considering possible futures.

Unless the reader himself lacks all imagination, I suppose.
I have enough imagination of my own that I don't need some pop-culture hack writer creating futures based on magical boxes that violate the laws of physics, for me to imagine possibilities for the future.
You do realize that not all sci-fi is magical-box sci-fi, right?

There are millions of pages of science fiction that never involves faster-than-light travel (which is the main violation of physics that sci-fi usually includes).

But even outright fantasy can have merit that goes far beyond mere escapism.

Again, I contend that you must simply lack imagination if you are incapable of relating any of the themes and lessons of (soft) science fiction and fantasy to modern life.

You may not personally like stories, but the fact remains that most people relate to stories far more strongly than to base descriptions of facts, and so if you want to reach those people with your political or social or philosophical (or scientific) points, without them feeling like they're in class, you package your points in a narrative.

Where did you get ANY of this from??? I have said I enjoy fantasy. I have said I enjoy science fiction. I get upset only when fantasy is labelled as science fiction. All I'm saying is get your labels right. Don't sell sugar as medicine. And don't sell fantasy as science fiction. Label things what they are and I have no problem with it. (Though I dislike bad writing, but that's a separate issue.)
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on December 21, 2016, 03:52:53 PM
You yourself in this very thread said SF was fine as escapism but useless for imagining the future. You then implied there in that very quote that you take "imagining and considering possible futures" to mean "creating futures based on magical boxes that violate the laws of physics".
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lonely moa on December 21, 2016, 04:13:54 PM

Where did you get ANY of this from???

You should talk.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Dan I on December 22, 2016, 07:59:03 AM
I dislike the mislabeling of fantasy as sci-fi for the same reason that I dislike the mislabeling of homeopathy as medicine. I like sugar, in moderation. I dislike it when people call it medicine. I like fantasy. I dislike it when people call Star Trek "sci-fi" and pretend that it's more "possible" than Lord of the Rings.

I also happen to think that Star Trek was bad writing and bad acting and utterly idiotic in its presumption that on first contact with distant worlds we'd meet English-speaking almost-humans.

Might I recommend:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-great-science-fiction-works.html (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/how-great-science-fiction-works.html)
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Fast Eddie B on December 23, 2016, 11:15:13 AM
In trying to clarify about Premium gas, Dr. Novella again misstates something important...

As he's describing normal combustion, he says that the spark plug fires, causing the fuel/air mixture to "explode". That's a common misconception.

The spark plug or plug ignites the fuel/air mixture, which then burns in a controlled fashion as a flame front smoothly propagates and pushes the piston down.

If the mixture does explode, that's the pinging or knocking that can be heard when gas of too low an octane is used.

And that can be caused by two separate but related processes: Preignition and Detonation

Good video here:

https://youtu.be/UfqXhnr2Ho4 (https://youtu.be/UfqXhnr2Ho4)

This is aviation related, since my background is as an aviation instructor. But the same principles apply to and gas-powered internal combustion engine. But not diesels, where the fuel/air mixture does sort of explode - which is why they sound like they're knocking all the time!
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: SkeptiQueer on December 23, 2016, 11:52:45 AM
I dislike the mislabeling of fantasy as sci-fi for the same reason that I dislike the mislabeling of homeopathy as medicine. I like sugar, in moderation. I dislike it when people call it medicine. I like fantasy. I dislike it when people call Star Trek "sci-fi" and pretend that it's more "possible" than Lord of the Rings.

I also happen to think that Star Trek was bad writing and bad acting and utterly idiotic in its presumption that on first contact with distant worlds we'd meet English-speaking almost-humans.
Can I recommend a few books?

Cat's Cradle, Sirens of Titan, and Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut Jr are all sci-fi that does far more than just play out fantasy stories in space.

Red Shirts and the Old Man's War series, which explore the dark horror or Star Trek in a tongue-in-cheek manner and then the implications of humanity in space in a less than glamorous way, repaectively.

Sci-fi, unlike fantasy, is often very good at examining humanity and technology and challenging social norms and movements in a way that fantasy is not. While I agree that, for instance, Star Wars is fantasy in space, Star Trek was always so heavy on the social commentary that it even broke new ground in television with the first on-screen interracial kiss. You may not find either enjoyable, but I must ask that you draw a distinction between the two.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Ah.hell on December 23, 2016, 12:13:50 PM
Daniel might quite like red shirts as it pokes fun at most of the Star Trek conceits he dislikes so much. 
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Shipwreck on January 02, 2017, 01:14:58 PM
All Sci-fi has fictitious elements to it, that's why it's called Science Fiction - not "Science", even the most "hard" of sci fi's will be speculative. Sometimes though yeah, the line can get blurred and that's what can affect people's SoD. For me, Gravity was too unrealistic with it's multiple crashes of space stations and fire extinguisher jet packs which affected my enjoyment of it (unlike Steve who considers it his favourite!  ???) but I'd still put it in that genre. Star Wars or Jupiter Ascending I would not. As SQ says, fantasy in space. I'm torn both ways on if the Imperial Radch trilogy (worthy a read too) qualifies either way.

I'd like to think that Steve's explanation correctly summarize's the situation: Steve was so familiar with Klein's scientific credentials and evidenced-based research, he forgot to mention any of it in the interview. Perhaps. But the more I read about Klein, the less I believe that is the case. I still haven't seen peer-reviewed work from Klein.

I re-listened to episode 430, the previous time the SGU interviewed him. There was no pushback against his views, and no evidence to support them. Klein said some things that I found a little appalling, using the term "henpecked", and suggesting that the typical Swedish man wants to have extramarital affairs. I also noted that Klein had a controversy with Skepchick, an organization that I support and trust.

I hope we can get further clarification about the choice to give this guy a platform.

I've just finished this episode and the preceding one. That interview and follow up really did feel off to me, and not because of the subject matter. I looked into your comment about Skepchick and wow (http://skepchick.org/2012/06/psychology-today-blogger-your-facts-are-irrelevant-woman/). Now I'm really surprised this guy was even given a platform - and twice? His basic premise (there should be more education to children/teenagers about how porn isn't an actual representation of sex) everything else, was not.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on January 02, 2017, 03:27:04 PM
I haven't seen the movie, but what's wrong with fire extinguisher rockets?
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on January 02, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
I haven't seen the movie, but what's wrong with fire extinguisher rockets?

Unrealistic, and they seem to last longer than they really would, IIRC. I liked the movie, because Sandra Bullock, but it was pretty unrealistic.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: 2397 on January 02, 2017, 03:49:35 PM
I haven't seen the movie, but what's wrong with fire extinguisher rockets?

I haven't seen it either, but here's a scene with a fire extinguisher, starting at about 40 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXhHEXqMKE

How much pressure would there have to be in that fire extinguisher for that to be possible? I think if they wanted to do that they should've had the astronaut traveling with barely any speed at all. Relative to the station.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: daniel1948 on January 02, 2017, 07:35:21 PM
Even worse than the extinguisher having enough pressure and duration, is the idea that an untrained person, tumbling head over heels, would be able to shoot it in a way that would actually get her where she wanted to go. And then, when it's empty, she manages to throw the extinguisher itself in exactly the right direction to complete her trip and grab onto the station.

But I still liked the movie.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lucek on February 04, 2018, 07:16:03 AM
Quick google. Fire extinguishers have a velocity of 25M/S. The largest on the market are like 20lbs of CO2. If we go with an optimistic model space suit and average adult female human would be around 300lbs (yes i know i should convert to unites of mass) making it aprox 15:1 mass to propellant ratio. 25 M/S x 1/15 gives a delta V of 1.6 M/S repeating. In the scene she uses several orders of magnitude more delta V.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: RMoore on February 14, 2018, 12:42:57 PM
I wonder if you could get more velocity just by throwing the fire extinguisher? It depends on the person's strength, of course, but here is one data point (though it should be considered an outlier): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fastest-object-thrown-by-a-human
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: Friendly Angel on February 14, 2018, 12:57:03 PM
A 20-lb fire extinguisher will last 15-25 seconds.

I think the relevant principle though is conservation of momentum - and an astronaut would probably get more change in direction and/or velocity by throwing the whole tank and the spray would be for minor directional changes only.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: RMoore on February 14, 2018, 04:15:18 PM
A 20-lb fire extinguisher will last 15-25 seconds.

I think the relevant principle though is conservation of momentum - and an astronaut would probably get more change in direction and/or velocity by throwing the whole tank and the spray would be for minor directional changes only.

The fact that the discharge occurs over an extended time even reduces the effect more. Part of the thrust exerted at the beginning is used to accelerate the remaining mass of the extinguisher's contents. It's the same problem with lifting a rocket into space -- you need fuel to lift the rocket, and you need more fuel to lift the fuel.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on February 14, 2018, 11:20:49 PM
I doubt anyone can throw a 25lb tank-plus-gas at 55mph.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lucek on February 15, 2018, 01:05:19 PM
A 20-lb fire extinguisher will last 15-25 seconds.

I think the relevant principle though is conservation of momentum - and an astronaut would probably get more change in direction and/or velocity by throwing the whole tank and the spray would be for minor directional changes only.

The fact that the discharge occurs over an extended time even reduces the effect more. Part of the thrust exerted at the beginning is used to accelerate the remaining mass of the extinguisher's contents. It's the same problem with lifting a rocket into space -- you need fuel to lift the rocket, and you need more fuel to lift the fuel.
Technically true but insignificant. The mass of the extinguisher is an order of magnitude less than the person in a spacesuit holding it. Yes you accelerate the mass of the extinguisher but 95%+ is still accelerating the payload i.e. you.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on February 15, 2018, 04:40:55 PM
Yeah it's a difference of 54mm/s in delta-V (1.667 if it's all at once, 1.613 if it's over time).
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: RMoore on March 02, 2018, 05:47:03 PM
Speaking of rocket science calculations, I give you the dumbest thing I've read all week:

http://nov79.com/en/ener.html (http://nov79.com/en/ener.html)
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gmalivuk on March 03, 2018, 05:04:26 PM
I didn't read the whole thing (because I'd still like to use my brain today and can't afford to melt it with bullshit), but does that person know that *both* energy and momentum are conserved?

Also that there are other forms of energy than kinetic, such as the chemical energy in things like rocket fuel?
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: lucek on September 15, 2019, 02:53:29 PM
I didn't read the whole thing (because I'd still like to use my brain today and can't afford to melt it with bullshit), but does that person know that *both* energy and momentum are conserved?

Also that there are other forms of energy than kinetic, such as the chemical energy in things like rocket fuel?
In a way there are 2 types of energy. Potential and kinetic.
Title: Re: Episode #597
Post by: gebobs on September 16, 2019, 09:49:29 AM
I didn't read the whole thing (because I'd still like to use my brain today and can't afford to melt it with bullshit), but does that person know that *both* energy and momentum are conserved?

Also that there are other forms of energy than kinetic, such as the chemical energy in things like rocket fuel?
In a way there are 2 types of energy. Potential and kinetic.

So glad you finally cleared that up. ;-)