HOW TO WASH CAR WITH JUST UTILIZING AIR

Then there was this crazy idea ......

Is it possible to wash your car just with air to avoid water wastage .........  without water

Methodology :

a. Apply the washable solution on the car ... <scrub the dirtiest place with sponge> ...

b. Then proceed with pressurized air on the car surface... 

PS: To be noted that .. Do not overpressure the air as it would damage the surface of the car ... 

c. Proceed with applying car wax and wiped it off with the appropriate machine... 

Waaaalah ... we are done washing without wasting water 

This equipment is mostly recommended which would be applicable where the is limited water resources. 

History of a CAMERA

Photography is a word derived from the Greek words photos ("light") and graphein ("to draw") The word was first used by the scientist Sir John F.W. Herschel in 1839. It is a method of recording images by the action of light, or related radiation, on a sensitive material.

Pinhole Camera

Alhazen (Ibn Al-Haytham), a great authority on optics in the Middle Ages who lived around 1000AD, invented the first pinhole camera, (also called the Camera Obscura} and was able to explain why the images were upside down. The first casual reference to the optic laws that made pinhole cameras possible, was observed and noted by Aristotle around 330 BC, who questioned why the sun could make a circular image when it shined through a square hole.

The First Photograph

On a summer day in 1827, Joseph Nicephore Niepce made the first photographic image with a camera obscura.  
Prior to Niepce people just used the camera obscura for viewing or drawing purposes not for making photographs. Joseph Nicephore Niepce's heliographs or sun prints as they were called were the prototype for the modern photograph, by letting light draw the picture.

Niepce placed an engraving onto a metal plate coated in bitumen, and then exposed it to light. The shadowy areas of the engraving blocked light, but the whiter areas permitted light to react with the chemicals on the plate. When Niepce placed the metal plate in a solvent, gradually an image, until then invisible, appeared. However, Niepce's photograph required eight hours of light exposure to create and after appearing would soon fade away.

Louis Daguerre

Fellow Frenchman, Louis Gaguerre was also experimenting to find a way to capture an image, but it would take him another dozen years before Daguerre was able to reduce exposure time to less than 30 minutes and keep the image from disappearing afterwards.

The Birth of Modern Photography

In 1829, he formed a partnership with Joseph Nicephore Niepce to improve the process Niepce had developed.

In 1839 after several years of experimentation and Niepce's death, Daguerre developed a more convenient and effective method of photography, naming it after himself - the daguerreotype. 

Daguerre's process 'fixed' the images onto a sheet of silver-plated copper. He polished the silver and coated it in iodine, creating a surface that was sensitive to light. Then, he put the plate in a camera and exposed it for a few minutes. After the image was painted by light, Daguerre bathed the plate in a solution of silver chloride. This process created a lasting image, one that would not change if exposed to light.

In 1839, Daguerre and Niepce's son sold the rights for the daguerreotype to the French government and published a booklet describing the process. The daguerreotype gained popularity quickly; by 1850, there were over seventy daguerreotype studious in New York City alone.

Negative to Postive Process

The inventor of the first negative from which multiple postive prints were made was Henry Fox Talbot, an English botanist and mathematician and a contemporary of Daguerre.

Talbot sensitized paper to light with a silver salt solution. He then exposed the paper to light. The background became black, and the subject was rendered in gradations of grey. This was a negative image, and from the paper negative, Talbot made contact prints, reversing the light and shadows to create a detailed picture. In 1841, he perfected this paper-negative process and called it a calotype, Greek for beautiful picture.

Tintypes

Tinttypes, patented in 1856 by Hamilton Smith, were another medium that heralded the birth of photography. A thin sheet of iron was used to provide a base for light-sensitive material, yielding a positive image.

Wet Plate Negatives

In 1851, Frederick Scoff Archer, an English sculptor, invented the wet plate negative. Using a viscous solution of collodion, he coated glass with light-sensitive silver salts. Because it was glass and not paper, this wet plate  created a more stable and detailed negative.

Photography advanced considerably when sensitized materials could be coated on plate glass. However, wet plates had to be developed quickly before the emulsion dried. In the field this meant carrying along a portable darkroom.

Dry Plate Negatives & Hand-held Cameras

In 1879, the dry plate  was invented, a glass negative plate with a dried gelatin emulsion. Dry plates could be stored for a period of time. Photographers no longer needed portable darkrooms and could now hire technicians to develop their photographs. Dry processes absorbed light quickly so rapidly that the hand-held camera was now possible.

Flexible Roll Film

In 1889, George Eastman invented film with a base that was flexible, unbreakable, and could be rolled. Emulsions coated on a cellulose nitrate film base, such as Eastman's, made the mass-produced box camera a reality.

Color Photographs

In the early 1940s, commercially viable color films (except Kodachrome, introduced in 1935) were brought to the market. These films used the modern technology of dye-coupled colors in which a chemical process connects the three dye layers together to create an apparent color image.

 VISHALLINE MANOHARAN

Trevi test

How Does Trevitest Work

Here’s the basic principle, A force is applied to the valve spindle to overcome the spring tension of the valve. This is achieved using a hydraulic power pack linked to an electronic load transducer (Load Cell). A computer is then used to measure the force applied. By combining this data with information on the valve seat and line pressure of the valve it is possible to assess the set pressure.

Cost Effective Safety & Relief Valve Testing.

Hot testing of valves while operations continue. Cold Testing of valves on site and in the workshop. Trevitest will increase efficiency and save your organization money from day one.
In the past, valve testing revolved around, workshops and most importantly shutting down the line. The whole process was both time consuming and costly – but there is an alternative.
With Trevitest you can carry out accurate assessments of safety and relief valves in situ and under pressure – Hot Testing. There’s also the option of Cold Testing to assess the performance of new and existing valves.
Developed and patented world-wide by Furmanite, Trevitest is fast, safe and efficient. Operated in accordance with strict control procedures centred on ISO 9001, Trevitest can by used with most safety and relief valves manufactured for use in steam, air, gas process and water systems. These include conventional spring type valves, torsion bar valves.

Serving Energy Sector Thermal, hydro and nuclear power generation. Onshore/Offshore oil and gas production. Refineries and petrochemical plants. Fertilizer and Chemical plants.   Pharmaceutical Industry Food processing plants. Pulp and Paper plants. Hot Testing – Measured Under Preasure With Trevitest Hot Testing you get a date marked certified print out of valve set pressure and the line pressure at the valve. From this information the set pressure, spring adjustment rate and displacement lift of the valve can be determined. Trevitest also gives an indication of the effect of the nozzle ring, guide ring and reseat pressure. Major applications include: Steam Service Valves: Test  LP/HP valves of the drum safety and reheater valves at normal operating pressure without the need for increased boiler pressure. Clean Process Valves: Test all clean process safety and relief valves of almost all chemicals, oil and gases.  Nuclear Valves: Test safety valves on the secondary side, main steam safety valves and safety valves on the primary side plus CO2valves and pressuriser valves. The Advantages of Hot Testing No interruption to plant production during testing.   Diagnose safety and relief valves that require maintenance while the plant is running normally prior to scheduled shutdowns. Reduced time needed to commission the plant after shutdown. Reduced fuel costs with no need to raise system pressure. Only valve that require an overhaul need to be removed from the line. Welded in valves can be adjusted without costly removal form the line. Multiple test and resettings of valves within a short time scale. No need for temperature compensation to set pressure. Cold Testing – A Cool Assessment With Trevitest Cold Testing you can determine the set pressure, spring rate and valve displacement, Major applications include: Pre-commissioning safety and relief valves on new plant. Workshop testing following the conventional bench test to give the valve a “fingerprint”. This can be verified once the valve is on – site. Advantages of Cold Testing Eliminate the cost of the removing valves from their location prior to commissioning new plant. Only valves requiring overhaul are removed from the line – reducing plant downtime. Correct spline alignment of torsion bar safety valves saves unplanned shutdown.

What is landfill gas?

What is landfill gas? 

Gases are formed in a landfill when buried
wastes decompose (breakdown by 
bacteria) or volatize (change from a liquid 
or solid to a vapor). These bacterial and 
chemical processes create gases that are 
unlikely to pose any serious health 
hazards, but they may cause odors that 
some people find unpleasant.   

What do I smell? 

The most common type of landfill is the 
municipal solid waste facility, which 
accepts household and non-hazardous 
commercial and industrial waste. It 
typically contains 60% organic material,
such as food and paper. Because organic 
material tends to produce a great deal of
gas, municipal solid waste landfills have
the potential to produce odors. 
Sulfides and ammonia are the most 
common sources of odor in landfill gas. 
Sulfides produce a strong, rotten-egg 
smell that humans can detect even at very 
low concentrations. Ammonia produces a 
pungent odor that many people are 
familiar with because it is often used in 
household cleaning products. Both are 
normally present in the air, regardless of 
the presence of a landfill. 
                              
                

Is landfill gas hazardous to 
my health?
  
Landfill gas may cause temporary 
discomfort, but it is not likely to cause 
permanent health effects. At extremely 
high concentrations, humans may 
experience eye irritation, headaches, 
nausea, and soreness of the nose and 
throat. People with respiratory ailments 
such as asthma are especially sensitive to 
these effects. However, these temporary 
conditions are reversed as soon as the 
gases are reduced or eliminated.  
There is another group of chemicals, 
called non-methane organic compounds 
(NMOCs), which may be present in the air 
near a landfill, though they are not likely to 
reach harmful levels. NMOCs may occur 
naturally, or be formed by chemical 
processes. There is concern that longterm exposure to high levels of NMOCs 
could lead to health problems, but health
studies have been largely inconclusive. 
Currently, there is not enough information 
about the impacts that lifestyle choices, 
such as tobacco use, may have on 
compounding the health effects from 
exposure to landfill gases. 
Many people find the odors emitted from a 
landfill to be unpleasant. Although these
odors are undesirable, no medical 
attention is usually required. Landfill odors 
may cause temporary symptoms such as
nausea and headache, but their effect on
the comfort of individuals is difficult to 
evaluate, because different individuals 
may react differently to the same type and 
intensity of odor. 


What other hazards are 
associated with landfill gas?
  
The migration of landfill gas creates health 
and safety concerns when the gas enters 
buildings and other confined areas. Under 
these circumstances, landfill gas may 
contribute to the following hazards: 
 EXPLOSION HAZARD
Gases may form an explosive mixture 
when combined with air in specific 
proportions. Methane (odorless), is the
only gas likely to be produced in high 
enough concentrations to pose any 
real explosion hazard. However, 
methane is only explosive when
diluted to concentrations between 5% 
and 15%. There also must be an 
ignition source for an explosion to 
occur. 

 ASPHYXIATION HAZARD 

Asphyxiation occurs if there is not 
enough oxygen in the air to breathe. If 
landfill gases collect in a confined 
space, they have the potential to 
create an oxygen-deficient 
environment. Carbon dioxide is the 
gas most likely to create an
asphyxiation hazard. Symptoms of 
asphyxiation include headache, 
increased breathing and heart rate, 
and dizziness. These symptoms are 
reversed when exposure is eliminated.

How Do Coal-Fired Plants Work?

1. Heat is created
Before the coal is burned, it is pulverized to the fineness of talcum powder. It is then mixed with hot air and blown into the firebox of the boiler. Burning in suspension, the coal/air mixture provides the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.

2. Water turns to steam
Highly purified water, pumped through pipes inside the boiler, is turned into steam by the heat. The steam reaches temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures up to 3,500 pounds per square inch, and is piped to the turbine.

3. Steam turns the turbine
The enormous pressure of the steam pushing against a series of giant turbine blades turns the turbine shaft. The turbine shaft is connected to the shaft of the generator, where magnets spin within wire coils to produce electricity.

4. Steam turns back into water
After doing its work in the turbine, the steam is drawn into a condenser, a large chamber in the basement of the power plant. In this important step, millions of gallons of cool water from a nearby source (such as a river or lake) are pumped through a network of tubes running through the condenser. The cool water in the tubes converts the steam back into water that can be used over and over again in the plant.

The cooling water is returned to its source without any contamination, and the steam water is returned to the boiler to repeat the cycle.

All about Pumps

One day  when one of our water pumps failed in the cooling ponds one day, my boss gave me a requisition order and the keys to a company truck. He told me to go into the city and purchase another pump at the industrial supply house.

He said, “Get a water pump that pumps 30 psi [pounds per square inch] at 400 gpm [gallons per minute].” He wrote it on the requisition.

At the industrial supply house, the sales rep escorted me to the pump showroom. He said, “This is the water pump you need. It generates 70 feet of head at 400 gpm. Do you need a coupling and motor too?”

I said, “Wait a minute! I don’t need 70 feet of head. I want 30 psi at 400 gpm. What is 70 feet of head?” I thought the sales rep was trying to do a “bait-and-switch” on me. The requisition chit clearly stated 30 psi. I wondered why the sales rep used different terms. Indignantly, I walked away and went to a competing industrial supply house — where I repeated the same verbal exchange with their sales rep.

I know I’m not alone. This misunderstanding about head and pressure occurs daily all over the country … and, indeed, all over the world.

Pump users want pressure. Pump manufacturers supply feet (or meters) of head. In the final analysis, they are the same, just expressed from two different points of view. As someone who specifies and/or installs pumps, you need to know how these terms relate to each other.

Origins of head, pressure
Ancient Rome and Greece were supplied with running water in giant aqueducts, which carried fresh water from mountain lakes and streams down into the city. Underground clay pipes would carry the water by gravity to the different neighborhoods. The water would collect in fountains for the housewives to carry away daily in clay jars. A centurion normally guarded the fountain to prevent water theft or contamination.

That was 2,600 years ago — when water flowed by gravity, the flow was dispensed in jugs and barrels, and there were no pressure gauges or instrumentation. Still, it was generally understood that force (rated in units of energy) was required to elevate a quantity (volume or weight) of water against gravity. A certain amount of energy (force) was required to raise a jug of water from the fountain up into an oxcart or onto the housewife’s head.

In Greece 2,200 years ago, Archimedes developed the first practical constant-flow pump. The “Archimedes screw” would elevate water from a river up into an irrigation canal for agriculture. The screw was used as a bilge pump on the king’s barge. It would also lift well water up to the surface for the wives to carry home and use to pour their husbands’ bath. (The topic of women’s liberation requires another article.)

Beginning with the Archimedes screw and the Egyptian noria (another pumping device), pump force was rated in units of energy against gravity. For this reason, pumps are rated in “head” to express what we call pressure.

In 1643 the French inventor and mathematician Blaise Pascal, realized that air (the atmosphere) also has weight and that its force is applied in all directions, not just down with gravity. So, he clarified the concept of “pressure” as it is used in the physical sciences: He defined pressure as a force applied to an area, such as a pound of force applied to a square inch of area: thus, pounds per square inch.

A useful formula
Today, modern pump companies continue to rate a liquid’s force as a unit of energy against gravity. If we apply this same force in another direction — such as against the interior sidewall of a pressurized tank — we would use the term “pressure.”

In simple terms, the mathematical constant 2.31 converts a unit of energy against gravity into a unit of force against any other area. This constant converts a foot of head of water into pressure: Head in feet of water divided by 2.31 equals pressure in psi, and pressure in psi times 2.31 equals head in feet.

If the liquid is not water (examples: paint, chocolate syrup or gasoline), the liquid’s specific gravity must be factored into the formula.

The constant 2.31 comes from the following: A square foot of area contains 144 square inches; a cubic foot of ambient-temperature water weighs 62.38 (62.4) pounds per cubic foot at 70 F at sea level.

If I poured 1 pound of water into a tall, narrow vessel that occupies 1 square inch of floor space, I would fill that vessel to 2.31 feet of elevation. Now let’s apply this information with some examples.

Imagine you were on a clear mountain lake taking a ride in a glass-bottomed boat. If the viewing windows were 6 feet below the water’s surface, how much pressure would be acting on the glass panes? Answer: The pressure acting against the windows would be 2.6 pounds per square inch, or 6 feet ÷ 2.31 = 2.6 psi.

The pump rep was right
Here’s another example: Most communities will have an elevated tank of ambient water that supplies water pressure to the communities and neighborhoods below the tank. If the water in the tank is 150 feet above a kitchen faucet in one of the homes, what is the water pressure at the faucet (assuming no other influences on pressure)? Answer: 150 ÷ 2.31 = 65.8 psi.

A standard pressure gauge would record 66 psi. There would be 66 psi of water pressure available at the kitchen faucet, until someone opens the faucet and water flows. As the faucet is opened and water begins moving through the pipes, there would be a slight pressure drop due to friction between the water and the pipe’s internal walls.

Now let’s work in the other direction. If I want to buy a pump that develops 30 psi to pump water, what is my pump rating? What pump should I buy?

30 psi x 2.31 = 70 feet

If you need a pump to develop 30 psi of water pressure, then buy a pump that develops 70 feet of head.

So, it turns out that back in 1965, the pump sales rep was trying to show me the correct pump for my application.

Differential pressure
Allow me to refine a couple of points:

Pumps develop differential head, or differential pressure. This means the pump takes suction pressure, adds more pressure (the design pressure), and generates discharge pressure. So, the discharge pressure is equal to the suction pressure plus the pump’s design pressure. The discharge pressure of the pump should be approximately equivalent to the total dynamic head (TDH) required by the system (tanks, pipes, elbows, valves, flanges and fittings).

To monitor and control your pump, your pump should have a suction pressure gauge and a discharge pressure gauge installed on the pump. You are concerned with the differential.

Let’s say your pump is designed to develop 40 psi. Let’s say there are 3 psi of pressure in the liquid as it arrives into the pump. The suction pressure gauge will read 3 psi. The pump is designed to add 40 psi of pressure. The discharge gauge would read 43 psi. The differential is 40 psi.

If the pressure entering the pump is 25 psi, the discharge gauge will read 65 psi. The differential is 40 psi.

Sick pumps to behaving ones
I work as a engineert. Frequently I’m called to analyze a problem with a sick pump. I usually arrive to find the sick pump has no gauges installed. Or, maybe the sick pump has only a discharge gauge. The pump operator, installer or owner doesn’t know what the pump is doing. This is normally the source of the problem.

Operating a pump without gauges is like driving a car without a dashboard control panel. I mean, you need a timer and a temperature gauge just to cook a pan of biscuits in the oven.

After we control and monitor the differential pressure across the pump, the pump calms down and behaves. The discharge gauge is useless without the suction gauge. Remember, it is the differential pressure, or differential head.

Finally, if your system requires 50 feet of head at 600 gpm, then you will want to purchase a pump with best efficiency coordinates of 50 feet at 600 gpm on the pump performance curve. When reading these curves while choosing a pump, there is a certain optimum zone on the pump-curve graph that you want to stay in. That zone is where the pump operates most efficiently. Pump efficiency is the best combination of head and flow at the least energy consumption. Buy and use efficient pumps.

Handwriting analysis

Handwriting analysis is a surprisingly accurate way to gain insight into someone's personality and current emotional state. While it takes years of study and analyzation of hundreds, if not thousands, of writing samples to become a professional graphologist, you can become an amateur handwriting analyst by looking out for a few basic components of handwriting. Looking at the size, shape and baseline of someone's handwriting offers a quick analysis of their private and public persona.

Instructions

1. • 1
     Collect a writing sample. If you are analyzing yourself, write a few spontaneous sentences, sign the paper and date it. If you are analyzing someone else, have that person write a sample, sign and date it.
   • 2
     Examine the size of the handwriting sample. Large writing indicates a desire to be noticed and to stand out. Medium-sized writing reveals a desire to fit in, and small handwriting indicates a person who would rather blend in.
   • 3
     Compare the size of the sample signature to the handwriting sample. The signature indicates how a person wants to be perceived. The same principles as in Step 2 apply, but this analysis applies to the subject's public persona.
   • 4
     Notice the slant of the writing sample. Handwriting that strongly leans to the right indicates someone who is impulsive and enthusiastic. A slight right slant is consistent with a person who is sociable and outgoing. Vertical writing is characteristic of someone who is independent and practical. Left-slanted writing indicates a person who is reserved and possibly shy. Varying slants indicate an emotionally unpredictable person.
   • 5
     Compare the slant of the signature to the slant of the handwriting sample. The slant of the signature indicates how to person wants to be publicly perceived.
   • 6
     Analyze the baseline, or line against which letters are naturally written, of the writing sample. The baseline can change with a person's mood so this part of the analysis offers a glimpse into the current mood. A straight baseline is indicative of a stable, determined person. An up-sloping baseline shows a hopeful, optimistic person, while a down-sloping baseline could be a sign of pessimism or a tired, overwhelmed person. A varied baseline may indicate an emotionally indecisive mood.
   • 7
     Scrutinize the baseline of the signature in comparison to the baseline of the sample for a glimpse into how the person wants his mood to be viewed by the public.

Effects of Climate Change Today

Effects of Climate Change Today
Over 100 years ago, people worldwide began burning more coal and oil for homes, factories, and transportation. Burning these fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These added greenhouses gases have caused Earth to warm more quickly than it has in the past.

How much warming has happened? Scientists from around the world with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tell us that during the past 100 years, the world's surface air temperature increased an average of 0.6° Celsius (1.1°F). This may not sound like very much change, but even one degree can affect the Earth. Below are some effects of climate change that we see happening now.

Sea level is rising. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15 cm (6 inches) due to melting glacier ice and expansion of warmer seawater. Models predict that sea level may rise as much as 59 cm (23 inches) during the 21st Century, threatening coastal communities, wetlands, and coral reefs.
Arctic sea ice is melting. The summer thickness of sea ice is about half of what it was in 1950. Melting ice may lead to changes in ocean circulation. Plus melting sea ice is speeding up warming in the Arctic.
Glaciers and permafrost are melting. Over the past 100 years, mountain glaciers in all areas of the world have decreased in size and so has the amount of permafrost in the Arctic. Greenland's ice sheet is melting faster too.
Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Warmer waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death of about a quarter of the world's coral reefs in the last few decades. Many of the coral animals died after weakened by bleaching, a process tied to warmed waters.
The temperatures of large lakes are warming. The temperatures of large lakes world-wide have risen dramatically. Temperature rises have increased algal blooms in lakes, favor invasive species, increase stratification in lakes and lower lake levels.
Heavier rainfall cause flooding in many regions. Warmer temperatures have led to more intense rainfall events in some areas. This can cause flooding.
Extreme drought is increasing. Higher temperatures cause a higher rate of evaporation and more drought in some areas of the world.
Ecosystems are changing. As temperatures warm, species may either move to a cooler habitat or die. Species that are particularly vulnerable include endangered species, coral reefs, and polar animals. Warming has also caused changes in the timing of spring events and the length of the growing season.
Hurricanes have changed in frequency and strength. There is evidence that the number of intense hurricanes has increased in the Atlantic since 1970. Scientists continue to study whether climate is the cause.
More frequent heat waves. It is likely that heat waves have become more common in more areas of the world.
Warmer temperatures affect human health. There have been more deaths due to heat waves and more allergy attacks as the pollen season grows longer. There have also been some changes in the ranges of animals that carry disease like mosquitoes.
Seawater is becoming more acidic. Carbon dioxide dissolving into the oceans, is making seawater more acidic. There could be impacts on coral reefs and other marine life

Sea monkey

Sea Monkeys are a type of brine shrimp, and a member of the animal family Crustacea, which also includes crabs and lobsters. All crustaceans have a hard shell (known as an exoskeleton) that provides their bodies with support, the way our bones help us keep our shapes. Having a hard shell is great when you’re a small creature in a big ocean! It makes it more difficult for animals to eat the Sea Monkey and get to its gooey parts inside. But there’s a big problem. As the Sea Monkey grows bigger inside the shell, the shell stays the same size. So it needs to shed its shell, but this exposes its soft bodies to the outside world. It’s a perfect time for predators to eat them! (Fortunately, Sea Monkeys don’t have any predators in the little tank, so yours will be safe!) So they want to grow that shell quickly. Once the shell grows back, larger and harder, they are protected until the next time they need to grow bigger!
Sea Monkeys can manufacture their own trehalose, a substance they use to coat their eggs to keep them safe from extreme temperatures and lack of water. Once coated, these eggs are now called cysts and they can live many years in this state. But once the conditions are just right and you add the water to the eggs, they come back to life! This is how Sea Monkeys appear to come instantly to life when you add water!
The males are always smaller than the females (although this doesn’t help if you don’t have any females to use as a comparison!) And if you look closely, you’ll see that the males have pincers coming from under their chins. They use these pincers the way crabs or lobster use their claws, to fight or grab things. The females are generally larger, and once mature, will carry a brown coloured egg sac on their stomachs.

Did you know that when Sea Monkeys are born, they have three eyes? And as they get older and closer to adulthood, they lose that middle eye? (And you’d think that something like that would come in handy!) This is one way to tell when they are full grown, although it is hard to see the third eye. There are other, easier ways to tell when Sea Monkeys are mature. First, they grow bigger — up to 3/4 of an inch long! Second, the males will grow pincers under their chins. Third, you will see an egg sac on the stomach of the female. And finally they will have moulted their shells quite a number of times. If you look on the bottom of the tank, you might see some black things that look like Sea Monkeys. These are discarded shells. Can you tell when they are moulting? It’s hard, but if you watch carefully, you may see them shedding their shells!

Sea Monkeys don’t have brains; they have groupings of nerves called “ganglia.” One of these is found in the Sea Monkey’s head, the other just below the gut. These ganglia send out the messages to the Sea Monkey’s body to do different things, such as eat, or sleep, or chase after another Sea Monkey.

They breathe through their legs, using long tubes that come up from their feet. The gill plates along the sides of their legs help transport the oxygen they need to live! This is why they are called “branchiopods”.

A Sea Monkey’s kidneys aren’t located in its abdomen, the way ours are. Its kidneys are located in its head!

Sea Monkeys have a circulatory system to help move the blood around their bodies. Their hearts, located dorsally in their torsos, pump blood around their tiny bodies, the way our blood is pumped through our circulatory systems. As a note, they have hemoglobin in their blood, as do we. Hemoglobin helps carry oxygen around the body. Strangely, there is an inverse correlation between the amount of oxygen in a Sea Monkey's blood and the outside environment; the more oxygen in the tank, the less in the blood, and vice versa.

Sea Monkeys sometimes appear to be juggling the algae in the tank. Why is this? They are using their little legs to push the algae up to their mouth parts so they can eat it. And sometimes the Sea Monkey will look red. This is because the blue-green algae sometimes metabolizes their bodies to make it appear an orangy colour.

Finding a Fourth Dimension

Finding a Fourth Dimension


Braneworld challenges Einstein’s general relativity.
Scientists have been intrigued for years about the possibility that there are additional dimensions beyond the three we humans can understand. Now researchers from Duke and Rutgers universities think there’s a way to test for five-dimensional theory (4 spatial dimensions plus time) of gravity that competes with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. This extra dimension should have effects in the cosmos which are detectable by satellites scheduled to launch in the next few years.

Scientists at Duke and Rutgers universities have developed a mathematical framework they say will enable astronomers to test a new five-dimensional theory of gravity that competes with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

Charles R. Keeton of Rutgers and Arlie O. Petters of Duke base their work on a recent theory called the type II Randall-Sundrum braneworld gravity model. The theory holds that the visible universe is a membrane (hence “braneworld”) embedded within a larger universe, much like a strand of filmy seaweed floating in the ocean. The “braneworld universe” has five dimensions — four spatial dimensions plus time — compared with the four dimensions — three spatial, plus time — laid out in the General Theory of Relativity.

The framework Keeton and Petters developed predicts certain cosmological effects that, if observed, should help scientists validate the braneworld theory. The observations, they said, should be possible with satellites scheduled to launch in the next few years.
If the braneworld theory proves to be true, “this would upset the applecart,” Petters said. “It would confirm that there is a 4th dimension to space, which would create a philosophical shift in our understanding of the natural world.”

The scientists’ findings appeared May 24, 2006, in the online edition of the journal Physical Review D. Keeton is an astronomy and physics professor at Rutgers, and Petters is a mathematics and physics professor at Duke. Their research is funded by the National Science Foundation.

The Randall-Sundrum braneworld model — named for its originators, physicists Lisa Randall of Harvard University and Raman Sundrum of Johns Hopkins University — provides a mathematical description of how gravity shapes the universe that differs from the description offered by the General Theory of Relativity.

Keeton and Petters focused on one particular gravitational consequence of the braneworld theory that distinguishes it from Einstein’s theory.

The braneworld theory predicts that relatively small “black holes” created in the early universe have survived to the present. The black holes, with mass similar to a tiny asteroid, would be part of the “dark matter” in the universe. As the name suggests, dark matter does not emit or reflect light, but does exert a gravitational force.

The General Theory of Relativity, on the other hand, predicts that such primordial black holes no longer exist, as they would have evaporated by now.

“When we estimated how far braneworld black holes might be from Earth, we were surprised to find that the nearest ones would lie well inside Pluto‘s orbit,” Keeton said.

Petters added, “If braneworld black holes form even 1 percent of the dark matter in our part of the galaxy — a cautious assumption — there should be several thousand braneworld black holes in our solar system.”

But do braneworld black holes really exist — and therefore stand as evidence for the 5-D braneworld theory?

The scientists showed that it should be possible to answer this question by observing the effects that braneworld black holes would exert on electromagnetic radiation traveling to Earth from other galaxies. Any such radiation passing near a black hole will be acted upon by the object’s tremendous gravitational forces — an effect called “gravitational lensing.”

“A good place to look for gravitational lensing by braneworld black holes is in bursts of gamma rays coming to Earth,” Keeton said. These gamma-ray bursts are thought to be produced by enormous explosions throughout the universe. Such bursts from outer space were discovered inadvertently by the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s.

Keeton and Petters calculated that braneworld black holes would impede the gamma rays in the same way a rock in a pond obstructs passing ripples. The rock produces an “interference pattern” in its wake in which some ripple peaks are higher, some troughs are deeper, and some peaks and troughs cancel each other out. The interference pattern bears the signature of the characteristics of both the rock and the water.

Similarly, a braneworld black hole would produce an interference pattern in a passing burst of gamma rays as they travel to Earth, said Keeton and Petters. The scientists predicted the resulting bright and dark “fringes” in the interference pattern, which they said provides a means of inferring characteristics of braneworld black holes and, in turn, of space and time.

“We discovered that the signature of a fourth dimension of space appears in the interference patterns,” Petters said. “This extra spatial dimension creates a contraction between the fringes compared to what you’d get in General Relativity.”

Petters and Keeton said it should be possible to measure the predicted gamma-ray fringe patterns using the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope, which is scheduled to be launched on a spacecraft in August 2007. The telescope is a joint effort between NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and institutions in France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Sweden.

The scientists said their prediction would apply to all braneworld black holes, whether in our solar system or beyond.

“If the braneworld theory is correct,” they said, “there should be many, many more braneworld black holes throughout the universe, each carrying the signature of a fourth dimension of space.”

Original Source: Duke University

Top 10 science mistake

Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better … but scientists are human, too. It's just not fair to expect perfection out of them, is it? But come on, can't we at least ask for a reasonable level of competency?

Top 10 Science Mistakes

10: Alchemy
The idea of morphing lead into gold may seem a little crazy these days, but take a step back and pretend you live in ancient or medieval times.
Pretend you never took high-school chemistry and know nothing about elements or atomic numbers or the periodic table. What you do know is that you've seen chemical reactions that seemed pretty impressive: substances change colors, spark, explode, evaporate, grow, shrink, make strange smells - all before your eyes.
Now, if chemistry can do all that, it seems pretty reasonable that it might be able to turn a dull, drab, gray metal into a bright, shiny yellow one, right? In the hopes of getting that job done, alchemists sought out the mythical "philosopher's stone," a substance that they believed would amplify their alchemical powers.
They also spent a lot of time looking for the "elixir of life." Never found that, either.


9: Heavier Objects Fall Faster
OK, trick question: do heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones? Today, we all know that they don't, but it's understandable how Aristotle could've gotten this one wrong.
It wasn't until Galileo came along in the late 16th century that anyone really tested this out. Though he most likely did not, as legend holds, drop weights from the tower of Pisa, Galileo did perform experiments to back up his theory that gravity accelerated all objects at the same rate. In the 17th century, Isaac Newton took us a step further, describing gravity as the attraction between two objects: on Earth, the most important being the attraction between one very massive object (our planet) and everything on it.
A couple of hundred years later, Albert Einstein's work would take us in a whole new direction, viewing gravity as the curvature that objects cause in space-time. And it's not over. To this day, physicists are ironing out the kinks and trying to find a theory that works equally well for the macroscopic, microscopic and even subatomic. Good luck with that.

8: Phlogiston
What? You've never heard of phlogiston? Well, don't beat yourself up about it, because it's not real.
Phlogiston, proposed in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, was another element to add to the list (earth, water, air, fire and sometimes ether); it wasn't fire itself, but the stuff fire was made of. All combustible objects contained this stuff, Becher insisted, and they released it when they burned.
Scientists bought into the theory and used it to explain a few things about fire and burning: why things burned out (must have run out of phlogiston), why fire needed air to burn (air must absorb phlogiston), why we breathe (to get rid of phlogiston in the body).
Today, we know that we breathe to get oxygen to support cellular respiration, that objects need oxygen (or an oxidizing agent) to burn and that phlogiston just doesn't exist

7: The Rain Follows the Plow
If only it were so easy. It's actually kind of shocking that humanity held on to the idea that land would become fertile through farming for so long. Didn't anyone look around and see that all this farming of arid land wasn't doing much?
So much for observation.
In reality, this quite erroneous theory (popular during the American and Australian expansions) may have stayed alive in part because it did sometimes work -- or at least it seemed to work.
What we know now is that the plow wasn't actually bringing the rain; long-term weather patterns were. Arid regions (like the American West, for example) go through long-term cyclical droughts, followed by cycles of wetter years. Wait long enough and you'll get a few wet ones.
There's just one problem: wait a few more years and all the rain just goes away - only now, you've got a civilization to support.


6: The Earth Is Only 6,000 Years Old
Once upon a time, the Bible was considered a scientific work. Really. People just kind of assumed it was accurate, even when it didn't make much sense.
Take the age of the planet, for example.
Back in the 17th century, a religious scholar took a hard look at the Bible and estimated that creation happened around 4004 B.C. (you know, approximately). Add in nearly 2,000 more years to get to the 18th century, when Western, Bible-reading geologists started to realize that the Earth was constantly shifting and changing, and you get about 6,000 years.
Hmm ... those biblical scholars may have been a bit off. Current estimates, based on radioactive dating, place the age of the planet at around, oh, 4.5 BILLION years.
By the 19th century, geologists started putting the pieces together to realize that if geologic change was happening as slowly as they thought it was, and if this Darwin guy was at all right about evolution (which was also a slow process), the Earth had to be WAY older than they had thought. The emergence of radioactive dating in the early 20th century would eventually prove them right.


5: The Atom Is the Smallest Particle in Existence
Believe it or not, we weren't actually all that stupid in ancient times. The idea that matter was composed of smaller, individual units (atoms) has been around for thousands of years -- but the idea that there was something smaller than that was a bit harder to come by.
It wasn't until the early 20th century, when physicists like J.J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick and Neils Bohr came along, that we started to sort out the basics of particle physics: protons, neutrons and electrons and how they make an atom what it is. Since then, we've come a long way: on to charmed quarks and Higgs bosons, anti-electrons and muon neutrinos. Let's hope it doesn't get too much more complicated than that.

4: DNA: Not So Important

DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.
Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.
It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.

3: Germs in Surgery
Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.
The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).
"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.
Lister went on to pioneer the idea of actually cleaning wounds and using disinfectant. Remember him next time you reach for the Purell.


2: The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.
It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.
Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.



1: The Circulatory System
You don't have to be a doctor to know how important the heart is...but back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.
Back then, doctors like second-century Greek physician Galen believed (no kidding) that the liver (not the heart) circulated blood (along with some bile and phlegm), while the heart (really) circulated "vital spirit"(whatever that is).
How could they be so wrong? It gets worse.
Galen hypothesized that the blood moved in a back-and-forth motion and was consumed by the organs as fuel. What's more, these ideas stuck around for a very long time. How long?
It wasn't until 1628 that English physician William Harvey let us in on our heart's big secret. His "An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals" took a while to catch on, but a few hundred years later, it seems beyond common sense -- perhaps the ultimate compliment for a scientific idea.