Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from Damn Interesting
Iceland is known to the rest of the world as the land of Vikings and volcanos, an island caught between continents at the extremities of the map. Remote and comparatively inhospitable, it was settled only as long ago as the 9th century, and has seen little additional in-migration since. Even today, more than 90 percent of Iceland’s 390,000 residents can trace their ancestry back to the earliest permanent inhabitants, a Nordic-Celtic mix. The tradition of the Norse sagas lives on in the form of careful record-keeping about ancestry—and a national passion for genealogy. In other words, it is not the place to stumble upon old family mysteries. But growing up in the capital city of Reykjavík in the 1950s, neurologist Dr. Kári Stefánsson heard stories that left him curious. Stefánsson’s father had come from Djúpivogur, an eastern coastal town where everyone still spoke of a Black man who had moved there early in the 19th century. “Hans Jónatan”, they called him—a well-liked shopkeeper who had arrived on a ship, married a spirited woman from a local farm, and became a revered member of the community. The local census did record a man by the name of Hans Jónatan, born in the Caribbean, who was working at the general store in Djúpivogur in the 19th century—but that was all. No images of the man had survived, and his time in Iceland was well before any other humans with African ancestry are known to have visited the island. If tiny, remote Djúpivogur did have a Black man arrive in the 19th century, the circumstances must have been unusual indeed. It was an intriguing puzzle—and solid grounds for a scientific investigation. Given the amount of homogeneity in the baseline Icelandic population, the genetic signature of one relative newcomer with distinct ancestry might still stand out across a large sample of his descendants. Geneticists thus joined locals and history scholars, and they pieced together a story that bridged three continents. Continue reading ▶
It’s been a busy summer, and the large shortfall in donations last month has been demoralizing, so we’re taking a week off to rest and recuperate. The curated links section will be (mostly) silent, and behind the scenes we’ll be taking a brief break from our usual researching, writing, editing, illustrating, narrating, sound designing, coding, et cetera. We plan to return to normalcy on the 11th of September. (The word “normalcy” was not considered an acceptable alternative to “normality” until 14 May 1920, when then-presidential-candidate Warren G. Harding misused the mathematical term in a campaign speech, stating that America needed, “not nostrums, but normalcy.” He then integrated this error into his campaign slogan, “Return to Normalcy.” Also, the G in Warren G. Harding stood for “Gamaliel.”) While we are away, on 06 September 2023, Damn Interesting will be turning 18 years old. To celebrate, here are the first emojis to ever appear in the body of a Damn Interesting post: 🎂🎉🎁 If you become bored while we are away, you might try a little mobile game we’ve been working on called Wordwhile. It can be played alone, or with a friend. If you enjoy games like Scrabble and Wordle, you may find this one ENJOYABLE (75 points). Launch Wordwhile → And, as always, there are lots of ways to explore our back-catalog. View this post ▶
In the late 17th century, natural philosopher Isaac Newton was deeply uneasy with a new scientific theory that was gaining currency in Europe: universal gravitation. In correspondence with a scientific contemporary, Newton complained that it was “an absurdity” to suppose that “one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum.” The scientist who proposed this preposterous theory was Isaac Newton. He first articulated the idea in his widely acclaimed magnum opus Principia, wherein he explained, “I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses […] It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained.” Newton proposed that celestial bodies were not the sole sources of gravity in the universe, rather all matter attracts all other matter with a force that corresponds to mass and diminishes rapidly with distance. He had been studying the motions of the six known planets–Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus–and by expanding upon the laws of planetary motion developed by Johannes Kepler about eight decades earlier, he arrived at an equation for gravitational force F that seemed to match decades of data: Where m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between their centers of mass, and G is the gravitational constant (~0.0000000000667408). But this is only an approximation; humanity may never know the precise value because it is impossible to isolate any measuring apparatus from all of the gravity in the universe. Fellow astronomers found that Newton’s theory seemed to be accurate–universal gravitation appeared to reliably forecast the sometimes irregular motion of the planets even more closely than Kepler’s laws. In 1705, Queen Anne knighted Isaac Newton to make him Sir Isaac Newton (though this honor was due to his work in politics, not for his considerable contributions to math or science). In the century that followed, Newton’s universal gravitation performed flawlessly. Celestial bodies appeared to adhere to the elegant theory, and in scientific circles, it began to crystallize into a law of nature. But in the early 19th century, cracks began to appear. When astronomer Alexis Bouvard used Newton’s equations to carefully calculate future positions of Jupiter and Saturn, they proved spectacularly accurate. However, when he followed up in 1821 with astronomical tables for Uranus–the outermost known planet–subsequent observations revealed that the planet was crossing the sky substantially slower than projected. The fault was not in Bouvard’s math; Uranus appeared to be violating the law of universal gravitation. Newton’s theory was again called into question in 1843 by a 32-year-old assistant astronomer at the Paris Observatory, Urbain Le Verrier. Le Verrier had been following the Uranus perturbations with great interest, while also compiling a painstaking record of the orbit of Mercury–the innermost known planet. He found that Mercury also departed from projections made by universal gravitation. Was universal gravitation a flawed theory? Or might undiscovered planets lurk in extra-Uranian and intra-Mercurial space, disturbing the orbits of the known planets? Astronomers around the world scoured the skies, seeking out whatever was perturbing the solar system. The answer, it turned out, was more bizarre than they could have supposed. Continue reading ▶
An American Indian man on horseback stood outlined against a steely sky past midday on 05 October 1877. Winter was already settling into the prairies of what would soon become the state of Montana. Five white men stood in the swaying grass on the other side of the field, watching the horse move closer. Four wore blue uniforms, another in civilian attire. One of the uniformed men was tall and stout, with bright blue eyes and a large, curling mustache. He watched the proceedings with an air of self-importance. The surrender of the man on horseback might have been inevitable, sure, but it was nevertheless a nice feather in his cap. Perhaps his superiors would finally grant him that promotion after this whole affair was over. The other four men were more apprehensive. All of them were experienced in fighting American Indians on the frontier, but this opponent had been different. One man, with a full, dark beard and right arm missing below the elbow, looked at the approaching chief with grudging respect. The man had lost his arm in the American Civil War 15 years earlier, so he knew battle well. And in his opinion, the man across the field was a tactical genius, a “Red Napoleon.” Despite overwhelming odds, this Red Napoleon had wormed his way out of battle after battle, somehow always coming out on top. Continue reading ▶
More in science
[Note that this article is a transcript of the video embedded above.] “The big black stacks of the Illium Works of the Federal Apparatus Corporation spewed acid fumes and soot over the hundreds of men and women who were lined up before the red-brick employment office.” That’s the first line of one of my favorite short stories, written by Kurt Vonnegut in 1955. It paints a picture of a dystopian future that, thankfully, didn’t really come to be, in part because of those stacks. In some ways, air pollution is kind of a part of life. I’d love to live in a world where the systems, materials and processes that make my life possible didn’t come with any emissions, but it’s just not the case... From the time that humans discovered fire, we’ve been methodically calculating the benefits of warmth, comfort, and cooking against the disadvantages of carbon monoxide exposure and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter… Maybe not in that exact framework, but basically, since the dawn of humanity, we’ve had to deal with smoke one way or another. Since, we can’t accomplish much without putting unwanted stuff into the air, the next best thing is to manage how and where it happens to try and minimize its impact on public health. Of course, any time you have a balancing act between technical issues, the engineers get involved, not so much to help decide where to draw the line, but to develop systems that can stay below it. And that’s where the smokestack comes in. Its function probably seems obvious; you might have a chimney in your house that does a similar job. But I want to give you a peek behind the curtain into the Illium Works of the Federal Apparatus Corporation of today and show you what goes into engineering one of these stacks at a large industrial facility. I’m Grady, and this is Practical Engineering. We put a lot of bad stuff in the air, and in a lot of different ways. There are roughly 200 regulated hazardous air pollutants in the United States, many with names I can barely pronounce. In many cases, the industries that would release these contaminants are required to deal with them at the source. A wide range of control technologies are put into place to clean dangerous pollutants from the air before it’s released into the environment. One example is coal-fired power plants. Coal, in particular, releases a plethora of pollutants when combusted, so, in many countries, modern plants are required to install control systems. Catalytic reactors remove nitrous oxides. Electrostatic precipitators collect particulates. Scrubbers use lime (the mineral, not the fruit) to strip away sulfur dioxide. And I could go on. In some cases, emission control systems can represent a significant proportion of the costs involved in building and operating a plant. But these primary emission controls aren’t always feasible for every pollutant, at least not for 100 percent removal. There’s a very old saying that “the solution to pollution is dilution.” It’s not really true on a global scale. Case in point: There’s no way to dilute the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or rather, it’s already as dilute as it’s going to get. But, it can be true on a local scale. Many pollutants that affect human health and the environment are short-lived; they chemically react or decompose in the atmosphere over time instead of accumulating indefinitely. And, for a lot of chemicals, there are concentration thresholds below which the consequences on human health are negligible. In those cases, dilution, or really dispersion, is a sound strategy to reduce their negative impacts, and so, in some cases, that’s what we do, particularly at major point sources like factories and power plants. One of the tricks to dispersion is that many plumes are naturally buoyant. Naturally, I’m going to use my pizza oven to demonstrate this. Not all, but most pollutants we care about are a result of combustion; burning stuff up. So the plume is usually hot. We know hot air is less dense, so it naturally rises. And the hotter it is, the faster that happens. You can see when I first start the fire, there’s not much air movement. But as the fire gets hotter in the oven, the plume speeds up, ultimately rising higher into the air. That’s the whole goal: get the plume high above populated areas where the pollutants can be dispersed to a minimally-harmful concentration. It sounds like a simple solution - just run our boilers and furnaces super hot to get enough buoyancy for the combustion products to disperse. The problem with the solution is that the whole reason we combust things is usually to recover the heat. So if you’re sending a lot of that heat out of the system, just because it makes the plume disperse better, you’re losing thermodynamic efficiency. It’s wasteful. That’s where the stack comes in. Let me put mine on and show you what I mean. I took some readings with the anemometers with the stack on and off. The airspeed with the stack on was around double with it off. About a meter per second compared with two. But it’s a little tougher to understand why. It’s intuitive that as you move higher in a column of fluid, the pressure goes down (since there’s less weight of the fluid above). The deeper you dive in a pool, the more pressure you feel. The higher you fly in a plane or climb a mountain, the lower the pressure. The slope of that line is proportional to a fluid’s density. You don’t feel much of a pressure difference climbing a set of stairs because air isn’t very dense. If you travel the same distance in water, you’ll definitely notice the difference. So let’s look at two columns of fluid. One is the ambient air and the other is the air inside a stack. Since it’s hotter, the air inside the stack is less dense. Both columns start at the same pressure at the bottom, but the higher you go, the more the pressure diverges. It’s kind of like deep sea diving in reverse. In water, the deeper you go into the dense water, the greater the pressure you feel. In a stack, the higher you are in a column of hot air, the more buoyant you feel compared to the outside air. This is the genius of a smoke stack. It creates this difference in pressure between the inside and outside that drives greater airflow for a given temperature. Here’s the basic equation for a stack effect. I like to look at equations like this divided into what we can control and what we can’t. We don’t get to adjust the atmospheric pressure, the outside temperature, and this is just a constant. But you can see, with a stack, an engineer now has two knobs to turn: the temperature of the gas inside and the height of the stack. I did my best to keep the temperature constant in my pizza oven and took some airspeed readings. First with no stack. Then with the stock stack. Then with a megastack. By the way, this melted my anemometer; should have seen that coming. Thankfully, I got the measurements before it melted. My megastack nearly doubled the airspeed again at around three-and-a-half meters per second versus the two with just the stack that came with the oven. There’s something really satisfying about this stack effect to me. No moving parts or fancy machinery. Just put a longer pipe and you’ve fundamentally changed the physics of the whole situation. And it’s a really important tool in the environmental engineer’s toolbox to increase airflow upward, allowing contaminants to flow higher into the atmosphere where they can disperse. But this is not particularly revolutionary… unless you’re talking about the Industrial Revolution. When you look at all the pictures of the factories in the 19th century, those stacks weren’t there to improve air quality, if you can believe it. The increased airflow generated by a stack just created more efficient combustion for the boilers and furnaces. Any benefits to air quality in the cities were secondary. With the advent of diesel and electric motors, we could use forced drafts, reducing the need for a tall stack to increase airflow. That was kind of the decline of the forests of industrial chimneys that marked the landscape in the 19th century. But they’re obviously not all gone, because that secondary benefit of air quality turned into the primary benefit as environmental rules about air pollution became stricter. Of course, there are some practical limits that aren’t taken into account by that equation I showed. The plume cools down as it moves up the stack to the outside, so its density isn’t constant all the way up. I let my fire die down a bit so it wouldn’t melt the thermometer (learned my lesson), and then took readings inside the oven and at the top of the stack. You can see my pizza oven flue gas is around 210 degrees at the top of the mega-stack, but it’s roughly 250 inside the oven. After the success of the mega stack on my pizza oven, I tried the super-mega stack with not much improvement in airflow: about 4 meters per second. The warm air just got too cool by the time it reached the top. And I suspect that frictional drag in the longer pipe also contributed to that as well. So, really, depending on how insulating your stack is, our graph of height versus pressure actually ends up looking like this. And this can be its own engineering challenge. Maybe you’ve gotten back drafts in your fireplace at home because the fire wasn’t big or hot enough to create that large difference in pressure. You can see there are a lot of factors at play in designing these structures, but so far, all we’ve done is get the air moving faster. But that’s not the end goal. The purpose is to reduce the concentration of pollutants that we’re exposed to. So engineers also have to consider what happens to the plume once it leaves the stack, and that’s where things really get complicated. In the US, we have National Ambient Air Quality Standards that regulate six so-called “criteria” pollutants that are relatively widespread: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulates, and sulfur dioxide. We have hard limits on all these compounds with the intention that they are met at all times, in all locations, under all conditions. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. You can go on EPA’s website and look at the so-called “non-attainment” areas for the various pollutants. But we do strive to meet the standards through a list of measures that is too long to go into here. And that is not an easy thing to do. Not every source of pollution comes out of a big stationary smokestack where it’s easy to measure and control. Cars, buses, planes, trucks, trains, and even rockets create lots of contaminants that vary by location, season, and time of day. And there are natural processes that contribute as well. Forests and soil microbes release volatile organic compounds that can lead to ozone formation. Volcanic eruptions and wildfires release carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Even dust storms put particulates in the air that can travel across continents. And hopefully you’re seeing the challenge of designing a smoke stack. The primary controls like scrubbers and precipitators get most of the pollutants out, and hopefully all of the ones that can’t be dispersed. But what’s left over and released has to avoid pushing concentrations above the standards. That design has to work within the very complicated and varying context of air chemistry and atmospheric conditions that a designer has no control over. Let me show you a demo. I have a little fog generator set up in my garage with a small fan simulating the wind. This isn’t a great example because the airflow from the fan is pretty turbulent compared to natural winds. You occasionally get some fog at the surface, but you can see my plume mainly stays above the surface, dispersing as it moves with the wind. But watch what happens when I put a building downstream. The structure changes the airflow, creating a downwash effect and pulling my plume with it. Much more frequently you see the fog at the ground level downstream. And this is just a tiny example of how complex the behavior of these plumes can be. Luckily, there’s a whole field of engineering to characterize it. There are really just two major transport processes for air pollution. Advection describes how contaminants are carried along by the wind. Diffusion describes how those contaminants spread out through turbulence. Gravity also affects air pollution, but it doesn’t have a significant effect except on heavier-than-air particulates. With some math and simplifications of those two processes, you can do a reasonable job predicting the concentration of any pollutant at any point in space as it moves and disperses through the air. Here’s the basic equation for that, and if you’ll join me for the next 2 hours, we’ll derive this and learn the meaning of each term… Actually, it might take longer than that, so let’s just look at a graphic. You can see that as the plume gets carried along by the wind, it spreads out in what’s basically a bell curve, or gaussian distribution, in the planes perpendicular to the wind direction. But even that is a bit too simplified to make any good decisions with, especially when the consequences of getting it wrong are to public health. A big reason for that is atmospheric stability. And this can make things even more complicated, but I want to explain the basics, because the effect on plumes of gas can be really dramatic. You probably know that air expands as it moves upward; there’s less pressure as you go up because there is less air above you. And as any gas expands, it cools down. So there’s this relationship between height and temperature we call the adiabatic lapse rate. It’s about 10 degrees Celsius for every kilometer up or about 28 Fahrenheit for every mile up. But the actual atmosphere doesn’t always follow this relationship. For example, rising air parcels can cool more slowly than the surrounding air. This makes them warmer and less dense, so they keep rising, promoting vertical motion in a positive feedback loop called atmospheric instability. You can even get a temperature inversion where you have cooler air below warmer air, something that can happen in the early morning when the ground is cold. And as the environmental lapse rate varies from the adiabatic lapse rate, the plumes from stacks change. In stable conditions, you usually get a coning plume, similar to what our gaussian distribution from before predicts. In unstable conditions, you get a lot of mixing, which leads to a looping plume. And things really get weird for temperature inversions because they basically act like lids for vertical movement. You can get a fanning plume that rises to a point, but then only spreads horizontally. You can also get a trapping plume, where the air gets stuck between two inversions. You can have a lofting plume, where the air is above the inversion with stable conditions below and unstable conditions above. And worst of all, you can have a fumigating plume when there are unstable conditions below an inversion, trapping and mixing the plume toward the ground surface. And if you pay attention to smokestacks, fires, and other types of emissions, you can identify these different types of plumes pretty easily. Hopefully you’re seeing now how much goes into this. Engineers have to keep track of the advection and diffusion, wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, the effects of terrain and buildings on all those factors, plus the pre-existing concentrations of all the criteria pollutants from other sources, which vary in time and place. All that to demonstrate that your new source of air pollution is not going to push the concentrations at any place, at any time, under any conditions, beyond what the standards allow. That’s a tall order, even for someone who loves gaussian distributions. And often the answer to that tall order is an even taller smokestack. But to make sure, we use software. The EPA has developed models that can take all these factors into account to simulate, essentially, what would happen if you put a new source of pollution into the world and at what height. So why are smokestacks so tall? I hope you’ll agree with me that it turns out to be a pretty complicated question. And it’s important, right? These stacks are expensive to build and maintain. Those costs trickle down to us through the costs of the products and services we buy. They have a generally negative visual impact on the landscape. And they have a lot of other engineering challenges too, like resonance in the wind. And on the other hand, we have public health, arguably one of the most critical design criteria that can exist for an engineer. It’s really important to get this right. I think our air quality regulations do a lot to make sure we strike a good balance here. There are even rules limiting how much credit you can get for building a stack higher for greater dispersion to make sure that we’re not using excessively tall stacks in lieu of more effective, but often more expensive, emission controls and strategies. In a perfect world, none of the materials or industrial processes that we rely on would generate concentrated plumes of hazardous gases. We don’t live in that perfect world, but we are pretty fortunate that, at least in many places on Earth, air quality is something we don’t have to think too much about. And to thank for it, we have a relatively small industry of environmental professionals who do think about it, a whole lot. You know, for a lot of people, this is their whole career; what they ponder from 9-5 every day. Something most of us would rather keep out of mind, they face it head-on, developing engineering theories, professional consensus, sensible regulations, modeling software, and more - just so we can breathe easy.
In the movie Blade Runner 2049 (an excellent film I highly recommend), Ryan Gosling’s character, K, has an AI “wife”, Joi, played by Ana de Armas. K is clearly in love with Joi, who is nothing but software and holograms. In one poignant scene, K is viewing a giant ad for AI companions and sees […] The post AI Therapists first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.
Why are buildings today austere, while buildings of the past were ornate and elaborately ornamented?
A conversation about EHRs, who their customers actually are, and building apps
The lush forests that have long sustained Cambodia’s Indigenous people have steadily fallen to illicit logging. Now, community members face intimidation and risk arrest as they patrol their forests to document the losses and try to push the government to stop the cutting. Read more on E360 →
