HOW TO BUILD A RAILGUN

BRING IT ON, TERMINATORS!

I've been meaning to get to writing this post for some time as it is something near and dear to my heart.. or maybe my brain.  No, it is not some save-the-Earth cause or suggestions on a way to feed the homeless.  This is an article that gives you, the reader, a concise overview of the many ways to build the world's most awesome cutting-edge explosive-free weapon; the rail gun.

For those of you not familiar with this particular form of badassery, A railgun is "an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher based on similar principles to the homopolar motor."  Essentially, in its many forms, it is a pair of parallel conducting rails, along which a sliding projectile is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the projectile and then back along the other rail.

Railguns first burst into public view in theSchwarzenegger flop; Eraser, but have since become a weapon with a cult following comprised of physicists, engineers and plain old weapons geeks and science buffs.  Even the U.S. Navy has an affinity for this technology.  

For example, in the late 2000s, the U.S. Navy tested a railgun that was able to launch a 7 lb. projectile to hypersonic velocities of approximately 5,400 mph (about Mach 7).  In comparison, the fastest gunpowder-filled bullets travel around 3,300 mph.  Most rounds fired from conventional hunting and assault rifles travel between 1500-2200 mph.

Remember, when you are marveling at the above photo, that all the flames you see are not from an explosion in the normal sense of the word.  In this case it is merely the air crapping its pants and catching on fire. In more scientific terms "The flames are from pieces of the projectile disintegrating; the 7-pound slug is jammed so firmly between the rails that when it’s fired, pieces shear off and ignite in the air."  

But I won't bore you to death with the details.  Ladies and gents, I give you the DIY railgun guide:

**PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHEN ATTEMPTING ANY SCIENCE PROJECT OF THIS NATURE.  WEAR GOGGLES AND PROTECTIVE GEAR AND ALWAYS BE MINDFUL OF WHAT IS DOWNRANGE FROM YOU**

 

Basic explanation of the science behind the railgun.  Gives some interesting ideas as to how to design your launch system and also gives important safety precautions to be taken.

A more in-depth, higher-tech version that shoots a needle-like projectile between two powerful magnets using a daisy chain of disposable camera capacitors.

All the way up to 'Merica-sized.  This is Navy prototype with a test-fire.  Remember, no explosives are used in these guns.  It is all magnets.

Here is a close-up of the projectile leaving the barrel using a high-speed camera.  That fireball is amazing, but is also a reminder to be very careful when experimenting with this technology.  If a projectile can ignite the oxygen in our breathing air like this, imagine what could happen if you had some gasoline fumes lingering around in your garage.

So now that you're familiar, you may be considering toying around with one in your home or garage.  If you're like me and are too curious to let any unknown knowledge go unexplored, here are some blueprints of past successful railgun builders:

Princeton, Physics Dept project

Powerlabs

If you are intimately familiar with how to read electronic schematics, I would recommend the book More Electronic Gadgets for the Evil Genius, Iannini, 2006.  Apart from other cool projects like "Vaccum Coil Tesla Project" and "Ultrasonic Phaser-Pain Field Generator", Chapter 16 "Magnetic High-Impact Cannon"(p 133) may be just what the overachiever in you is looking for. 

I encourage anyone who may attempt to build one of these to post a video on this blog.  It will be very educational for all of us.  Also, while the construction of a railgun is not illegal, full transparency with your neighbors and law enforcement, should the occasion arise, is fully recommended.

Good luck!

ULTRA HD TV PRANK - Technology fools the human eye

Having fun with cutting edge technology.  This is one of the best I've seen.  Not a bad TV either!

NASA’S ION PROPULSION PROJECT: Deep-space exploration is becoming a reality

PAVING THE ROAD TO THE STARS

Hidden deep within the dark and unreadable recesses of NASA’s 2014, $17.7 billion dollar spending plan lurks something made of science fiction. It will allow mankind to travel the solar system at unprecedented speeds to origins, until now, only probed by high-powered telescopes.

Over the next decade, NASA is planning to design and build an unmanned craft, powered by an “ion propulsion engine,” to travel millions of miles into space, with its first set of instructions: to “lasso” an asteroid and tow it back for study.

At first glance, the project sounds ridiculous, but it arrives on the coattails of a recent study by Caltech’s Keck Institute for Space Studies that reviewed the feasibility of “robotically capturing a 500-ton asteroid about 23 feet wide and placing it in orbit near the moon by 2025” so that once the technology develops for scientists to be able to physically land on the asteroid and study it, well, we’d already have one nearby. If this concept doesn’t get your sci-fi glands pumping fast enough, let’s now discuss the ion propulsion engine.

NASA scientists expect the engine to operate by “combining high-energy, negatively charged electrons together with neutral propellant atoms (xenon) in a contained environment” in hopes that the electrons and atoms will furiously collide into each other, which will theoretically result in the yield of a second electron, which will then result in thrust. To add aesthetic legitimacy, the reaction gives off a faint blue glow, just like in the movies.

Apart from it being far more technologically advanced than any current propulsion method, the ion propulsion engine will not only travel at speeds far greater than current engines (the Space Shuttle travelled at roughly 18,000 mph. It is anticipated that the new generation of engines will reach speeds in excess of 200,000 mph) but it will also be incredibly fuel-efficient so that spacecraft may travel further, faster and less expensively.

As if this new technology wasn’t enough to make us salivate, NASA researchers have also alluded to the idea that they are already exploring other, more advanced methods beyond ion propulsion. The word “antimatter” has been thrown around. Your eyes just got bigger didn’t they? Don’t hold your breath. The anticipated timeline for antimatter engine development is roughly 40 years. Still, the notion that we may see these technologies in action within our lifetime is astounding.

Pretty cool, eh?

OVERPOPULATION: Are we running out of room?

“Inadequate sources of freshwater for drinking or effective sewage treatment, depletion of natural resources to include fossil fuels, increases in air, water and soil contamination, deforestation, loss of ecosystems, global warming, loss of workable land, mass desertification of the Earth, mass species extinction, slashing and burning of rainforests, high infant and child mortality, malnutrition, increase in epidemics and pandemics, starvation, malnutrition, global poverty, low life expectancy, elevated crime rates, conflict over scarce resources, less personal freedoms and an exponential rise in global consumption.”

“What is ‘our future’, Alex?”

Yes, indeed.  This is the ugly future face of an overpopulated planet; a scenario we are rapidly headed toward without a clear blueprint of how to divert the current course.  Our population has been gradually growing since the Black Death in 1400, but, due to the development of advanced medical practices and increased agricultural productivity, the planet’s population has skyrocketed in the last 50 years.  According to U.S. Census Bureau information, the global population has grown from 2.3 billion in 1940 to over 7 billion last year.  Furthermore, continued advancements in food production and medical technology will likely increase birth rates and life span even further to where we could conceivably eclipse 10 billion by 2040.

A significant problem with how to attack this problem is that no experts seem to be able to come to a consensus as to how many people are “too many”, as far as planetary sustainability is concerned.  Some estimate that we are already overpopulated while a few others set the bar at a whopping 16 billion – almost 2 ½ times our current population.  Can you imagine that?  Look anywhere you go; the supermarket, driving, restaurants, and imagine 2.5 times as many people everywhere.  The world would be astoundingly crowded.

Interestingly enough, the problem of overpopulation is no recently-concocted concern.  In fact, it was a major talking point amongst ancient Romans and Greeks including Socrates and Plato.  A citizen of Carthage in the second century CE opined about the then global population of about 190 million; “What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population.  Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us… In very deed, pestilence and famine and wars and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”  Obviously, this isn’t a groundbreaking issue of which we are just now becoming aware, although, 190 million people sounds like paradise.

Regardless of what we eventually find to be the agreed-upon population ceiling, most everyone agrees that there are just too many people on this planet, in one way or another.  The question is; what do we, or can we, do about it?  How do we stave off an impending global population crisis?

Some experts believe an increase in global wealth distribution and industrialization of the third world will eradicate poverty and disease enough that birth rates will taper off.  Areas with greater burden of disease and warfare have far higher birth rates than the global average simply because their calamitous conditions cause in the citizenry a sort of PTSD about losing family members, so to compensate they simply have extra babies.  Lose the war and disease, no need for a dozen kids. This is of course a double-edged sword as with increased industrialization come more noxious greenhouse gases being blasted into our already-beaten down atmosphere, but for now, let us temporarily forget about that pesky little speed bump and focus on the task at hand:  How do we convince people to stop making too many kids?

Other experts, however, argue that population increase is not the issue on which to focus, but rather, that we should be paying attention to rampant over-consumption, particularly in the West.  More particularly, we should pay attention to it in the United States, where 40% of the world’s goods are consumed.  Simply put, the Western world is consuming substantially more than the rest of the world.  In fact, it is estimated that the average American has the same carbon footprint of 250 Ethiopians.  So we must, therefore, ask the question; are we just participating in that oh-so-human activity of destroying ourselves by any means possible, just on a grander scale?

Perhaps the answer lies in Mother Nature herself.  Historically, biological records show that as populations increase, fertility rates decrease.  Taking into account other means of population control like disease and famine, Mother Nature seems to be self-regulating, or at least she used to be.  Enter modern medicine and agricultural development.  Thanks to our philanthropic pharmaceutical companies anyone can now procreate, even if they weren’t intended to.  It is a shameful characteristic of a populous that has put its own personal reproductive agenda ahead of global stability.

Pardon me while I climb down off this soap box.

Seriously though, we must be more self-aware and begin to question if we are intentionally bypassing Mother Nature’s ability to keep her planet healthy by having babies when we aren’t supposed to and consuming more goods than we need to so we can ultimately be kept alive for decades longer than we would have (or should have) naturally.  One has to imagine that at some point the levees of nature will break and our overseer will unleash hell in the form of a super bug or similar blight to wipe out half the world’s population “Black Death”-style.  Or, perhaps, the escalating conflict over scarce resources will lead to another planetary-scale war.  Either way, the score will be Planet : 1, Humans: 0.

It is difficult to postulate which of these wonderful outcomes is most likely. Regardless, if we don’t begin taking measures to stabilize the population in one way or another, it is likely that Mother Nature will unleash her own punishment upon us and not a single one of us would be undeserving of it.

Product review: EMPCO Bioluminescent algae

GLOW BABY, GLOW! 

Tired of giving boring and obligatory gifts for Christmas? Looking for that unique, off-the-wall gift for your special someone?  Did you get into the movie Avatar a little more than expected?  If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, EMPCO's bio-luminescent algae cultures may be just what you're looking for to WOW gift recipients this holiday season.

As a fellow pursuer of the curious, I made a somewhat rash decision one night after downing a few too many shots of tequila to purchase a beaker of this in an effort to make my 800 sq ft apartment glow blue without the use of electricity.  Don't judge me.  I was playing Skyrim and thought those glowing mushrooms would be pretty cool to have.  Hindsight is 20/20, friends.  Nevertheless, it was still a very cool purchase.

EMPCO provides reasonably-priced beakers full of procystis fusiformis, procystis nociluta and procystis lunula for around $25.00 each.  They also offer more comprehensive packages for around $100.00 which includes other equipment and solutions intended on keeping your cultures alive longer.  It is up to you to decide which package is right for you.  For what it's worth, I opted for the less expensive package and my culture kept chugging along for about two months.

So here's how it works:

Contrary to what the photo attached to this article (which was taken from the EMPCO website) would have you believe, you should not expect that brilliant blue glow, at least not to that magnitude.  Granted, I'm no phycologist, so I may have just cultured them incorrectly, but the intensity of glowing blue light my algae gave off was about 1/10 of what you see in the photo.  The algae also operate on a circadian rhythm, meaning that they'll only glow blue during the dead of night.  Don't bother trying this during the day in a dark room.  It won't work.  Furthermore, don't expect to wake up to the beaker glowing by itself in the middle of the night as the light is only given off if the beaker is disturbed.  Instructions recommend you lightly shake the bottle.  Surely enough, though, when all conditions are met, you'll be witness to a very satisfying (yet very temporary) iridescent blue glow.

The verdict:

Regardless of how much the algae makes you work for it, I still recommend this as a purchase for any curious soul.  It is very cool to have a beaker of bioluminescent algae on your counter-top at home, either as a conversation piece or just to satisfy your own curiosity as a science dork.  If you really want to understand the science behind what's going on in that little beaker, I would also recommend checking out one of the following books as well: The Optics of Life; Johnsen, 2012 or Bioluminescence - Living Lights, Lights for Living, Wilson & Hastings, 2013; the latter of the two being easier to understand to the lay man (also has nicer photos).

Cultures are available at EMPCO.org.

Bill Nye: Still working to save the world

BILL NYE:  GOOD WORK IS NEVER DONE

Bill Nye explains the motivation for creating his popular show and how he plans on continuing to educate the children of the world.  Interesting anecdotes regarding those who have tried to challenge the science in his claims. 

Science continues to be attacked by the religious community, climate change deniers, "Young Earth" advocates and the like; even in the face of insurmountable evidence in support of science.

On Hunting: The underlying reasons why we either hunt or hate hunting

The leaves are starting to change. As autumn falls upon us, we will become witness to the beauty of nature’s transformation from lush green to yellows, oranges and reds in preparation for winter slumber. Families will begin to gather around the TV on Saturdays and Sundays to cheer on their alma maters and favorite professional football teams, kids will scramble into SUVs for weekend trips to the apple orchards for some fresh doughnuts and, of course, the army of fluorescent orange-clad “sportsmen” will once again grace our nation’s forests and fields. It’s hunting season again and Mother Nature is in the crosshairs.

Growing up in a “hunting family” in the northern Midwest, I was always around, and even participated in, the killing of animals in their native habitats. From Bambi to Chip & Dale, no furry creature was beyond the power of my mighty bow and arrow or .410 gauge break-action shotgun. My tenure as “Conqueror of Nature”, however, was abbreviated as I only bagged a handful of squirrels and one rabbit. Turns out I wasn’t very good at it and it sort of just slipped away from my mind for a few decades.

Only until I reached my mid-30s and noticed the surprisingly large numbers of my adult friends that still hunted, did I start to ponder the ethics of hunting. Why were these grown men, who had hopefully evolved past the mindless brutish thinking of adolescence, still going out of their way to kill animals? Was such an activity a necessary means of population control as the hunting community loves to boast? Or, was there something deeper to it? In my research I have read what seems to be a never ending point-counterpoint on the killing of wild animals every fall and I’d be lying if I said the issue was any clearer. It is to be noted that in my more recent years I have leaned rather significantly in the direction of the anti-hunters but I will openly admit that the hunting community brought up some interesting points, which I will discuss:

WHY PEOPLE HUNT

For seemingly an eternity, psychologists and other mind-docs have claimed that hunting is an activity that only caters to the perverted and inadequate. Arguably, most of the anti-hunting activists would agree. It is easy to climb onto this bandwagon as it makes the most sense to anyone with even a semester of psychology under their belt. The answer as to whether or not this viewpoint is accurate, however, is a little more elusive.

I figured the best place to start asking question about hunting would naturally be with hunters. Predictably, when I would question them and challenge their activities, accusing them of merely looking for an excuse to kill something, they would reply, most often, with one of the three following counterpoints:

1. Hunting for meat: This reasoning drives me absolutely mad. While there are surely some seasoned hunters out there that can identify a prime eating animal as it walks by their tree stand, the vast majority of hunters shoot the first (and every single following) animal that may come across their path until their bag limits have been filled. Not to mention, a cost benefit analysis of hunting (license fees, weapons, and other equipment) vs. buying grocery meat also voids this argument.

When taking into account the array of both good and bad cuts of meat, even in times of inflated food prices, beef costs on average $3.80/lb., according to CNNmoney.com. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, it would be preposterous to even consider small game hunting as being more affordable that buying meat in a supermarket, so for the sake of argument, we will look at how much it costs a hunter to get a deer from the woods into his stomach. The average slain deer will produce 50 lbs. of meat (according to several Departments of Natural Resources). Therefore, the cost of hunting must be under $200 in order to make this argument sound. A decent shotgun or compound bow costs anywhere from $500-$1000. Not including licenses and other assorted gear, and cost of processing the deer. This argument obviously holds little water. Next.

2. Control overpopulation: Admittedly, there is solid scientific evidence that suggests hunting is a very effective means of controlling animal overpopulation in certain areas where the animals would otherwise starve or contract disease. This reason, however, is kind of a “dickish” response to Mother Nature. Humans are the ONLY cause for deforestation, urban sprawl and diminishing wildlife habitiat. Therefore, humans using population control as an excuse to hunt the weak and diseased (as a result of the aforementioned actions of humans) is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler’s Lebensraum in which the domination of neighboring nations was necessary for the healthy expansion of the Nazi empire. Killing of those conquered citizens was merely a formality, of course.

3. Controlling pests that pose a risk to you, your family or your property: I get this. I really do. In fact, I support it. If a coyote is a threat to your livestock, by all means kill it. If a bear takes a run at you as you get out of the car, I fully support disposing of the bear. This is no different than killing a rat that has invaded your kitchen or an opossum in your garage. The difference in this act from the others, however, is that this is based in the defense of yourself, your loved ones and your possessions. Most acts committed in the defense of oneself are wholly acceptable, perhaps not by the law, but nevertheless by the mindset of most Westerners. Basically, you do what you gotta do to protect your stuff.

Back on track…

After considering the invalidity of the aforementioned replies (of course, omitting the last), an anti-hunter could only be led to believe that hunters likely kill animals just for the sake of killing something without the fear that the about-to-be-killed may respond in kind if you miss. To take it a step further, walking into a home and see multiple heads of various animals stuffed and hanging on walls is the ultimate “in your face” to mother nature and sends the blood boiling through most animal lovers. As if it wasn’t enough to kill our Earthly companions en masse, now we need to make an exhibitionist spectacle of it? The author, Aldo Leopold once observed in his 1953 publication Round River that “Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason—the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason—to reduce that beauty to possession.” On its surface, this act seems barbarous and borderline sociopathic. However, the hunting community has interesting points of defense.

In a 2007 issue of Montana Outdoors, author John Madson explains the brotherhood and sense of community and bonding that hunting may bring; “Ten thousand years ago the hunter might have stood by a fire and recounted the great deed to his clan brothers, while the old men nodded their approval and stripling boys back in the shadows listened in wonder. It hasn’t changed much. The trophy hunter, the ethical killer of the great stag, or bear, or ram, still commands attention by the fire as he recites his deeds. His peers still salute him, the old men still nod and remember, and boys still dream of tomorrow’s hunts.”

Madson continues; “Companionship can be a strong element in hunting. For as long as men have hunted, they have banded into special hunting packs with their own taboos, traditions, and rituals. And sometimes the companionship and the rituals become more important than the hunt itself, and sometimes the greatest pleasure is in anticipation and recollection, with the hunt only serving to bond the two.”

Ultimately, until the exact reason for why people hunt are mapped out via brain scan, much like recent research shows how video games turn kids into killers (Sorry advocates, it’s true. See ANYTHING written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman), this back and forth will go on ad nauseam. Hunters will always postulate that they kill for a variety of reasons ranging from “working the dogs” to “being one with nature”. In response, the anti-hunting community will continue to scream “sociopath”, “murderer” and “hypocrite”. Hopefully someday both sides will understand the other. Then again, perhaps, we are just not equipped to understand.