Was the Tricerotops a baker?

Q: On a recent Scout hike, a heated debate developed during our woodly wanderings. Proudly standing on one side was a 12 year old insisting that grass did not exist during the era of the dinosaurs, and didn' t appear until after the great meteorite that brought mass extinction. On the other were several boys and leaders insisting that common sense pointed to the fact that grass did exist. There is honor, a little money and participation in future Scouting events riding on this. So. Did grass exist at the time of the dinosaurs?
The Vegan Raptor

A: Dear Poaceaen Minded,

It sounds like your adolescent dinophile is fairly caught up on the early eras of the earth and the development of land animals and plants. Or fairly so. You may not like the answer, but technically the 12 year old is right, and wrong. (What a safe cop-out). And until 2005 or so, he was mostly correct. Let's explain.

Grasses - specifically of the poaceaen or gramineae family - are a branch of flowering plants, even part of a greater group of monocotelydons (single seed leaf) that include pineapples, palms, orchids and lilies. We know grasses as things that produce food we eat - ryes, wheat, etc - and things we decorate with, i.e the lawn. The family includes bamboo, rice, and corn, and includes 9-10,000 species.

But this plant family that dominates our lives and cuisine, is relatively new. Lets describe the history briefly, as understood up through 2004, best summarized by Elizabeth Kellogg. Using rDNA studies of the chloropast genome (a sub-cell structure in plants) scientists can begin to create a family tree of grasses to show their development. You have to go pretty far back to find a common ancestor of rice and corn (maize). Scientists also use fossil evidence in conjunction with atomic dating to start fixing the early descendants. Specifically they look at pollen fossils and for specific grass features (look for channels that go through the outer but not inner pollen walls). Earliest examples are found at 60-55 million years ago. They have found some examples of pollen from 70 million years ago, but they cannot confirm it actually comes from grass.

Your brief dinosaur history: Dinosaurs were the dominant land vertabrates from the late Triassic to late Cretaceous period - roughly 230-65.5 million years ago. Science generally points to several mass extinction events taking place at the end of hte Cretaceous period to kill off the dinosaurs and allow mammels to dominate. This later time is a time of thriving for dinosaurs, including the Tyrannosaur. And some mammels were around at this time. But you can see that with dinosaurs dying off in 65.5 million years from asteroids and/or volcanos, grass wasn't around according to the fossil and genetic record. So before 2004 scientists declared, "Dinosaurs did not eat grasses".



A type of titanosaur sauropod

 But dinosaur poop saves the day! (Didn't expect that ever!) In 2005, a Science article discussed that they have found evidence of grasses in corprolites (the polite word for fossilized poop). Specifically they found that 5 different taxas (major species groups) of grasses were eaten by dinosaurs. (In this case titanosaur suaropods in India) This points to the fact that grasses were somewhat widespread and developed before the catastrophes of 65.5 million years ago.



A TV lie! He may have had the hammock, but not the lawn.

 So...both sides are right. (Keep in mind the the exact dating and science here is a bit nebulous and often dependent on what we are lucky enough to find in someone's backyard). Grasses did exist to a good extent during the time of the dinosaurs, but not for the majority of the time. So Fred Flinstone didn't have to mow the lawn. How you settle the bet is up to you.

HRB

Continue Reading...

Whirling Johns

Q: Dear All-Wise-100-Hr-Board,

I have heard (but have never traveled far enough to confirm) that when above the equator a toilet flushes in the opposite direction than from below the equator. Is this true?


If so, what occurs when you are located AT the equator?
 
Sincerely,
Flushed Away
 
A: Dear Swirly,
 
Who says they use toilets south of the equator? Or even AT the equator for that manner? Seeing as you have not traveled beyond the confines of your particular commodal region, you may not be aware what occurs in Australia. What do you think wombats are designed for? Which is why Tazmanian Devils are so very feared lest you confuse the two in the middle of the night. All of South America actually uses small buckets that magically teleport the...umm..leftovers to a specific septic tank in the 1000 Islands that magically needs extra pumping every year. And as you near the border, well...trophies are dried, shipped to Seattle and used as in high-price grande soy mocha latte.
 
We jest. Toilets in the Northern Hempisphere rotate counterclockwise, clockwise in the Southern. That is the whole toilet gets up and spins in only one direction. And then puts thier who selves in...their whole selves out... Ok...they flush in those respective directions. So at the border things just go straight down. Quickly. So watch the hands.
 
How do we know this? From watching hurricanes and cyclones that rotate similarly. Using deduction and gross-literary allegories we know that toilets behave similarly (gross...ha ha). What's good for the cyclones good for the crapper. If you know what I mean. I mean we give both of them men's names? Really...don't we consider the Gulf of Mexico our common WC? Coincidence? I think not.
 
Back in 1984 a group of MIT engineers and physicists undertook a NIS funded project to study this phenomena. Although fluid mechanics is central to engineers' studies (and essentially most civil engineers end up spending their career designing oversized toilet systems - HA BRIAN!), the real reason for the study arose from a debate on hair styling post swirlies. There was a worry that if an Aussie bloke gave you a swirlie while visiting a conference on Crocco effect in fluid dynamics (or a Star Trek convention Kirk) down under, you may not be able to adequately return to your 30 year old hairstyle. German nerds avoided this issue years ago by removing any toilet bowl and installing shelves. Trust me..I'll risk wet hair!
 

Surprisingly it was discovered that in fact the toilet bowls aren't large to come under the hyptonizing Coriolis effect. (Or that is, it is extremely neglibigle. Like spitting into the wind of a hurricane to mix analogies) The Coriolis effect is a 'fictional force' that is how straight movement on something rotating is perceived in another reference frame. Commonly we recognize this as air rotating in a low pressure storm - hurricane or cyclone (ruled by Buys-Ballot's law). Basically, hurricanes are huge and last around several days so the rotation of the earth effects the winds flowing towards the low pressure point to curve them. In the North you see this as counterclockwise storms, clockwise in the South. On the equator: nada - but only exactly there.

Turns out toilets, sinks, bathtubs (yes even jacuzzi tubs), swimming pools and the like are way too small to be effected or noticed. (Unless you live in a crapper).

 

 

"But my toilet swirls counterclockwise!" you say in consternation (NOT constipation). Well, the swirls are actually caused by the way the toilet flushes. Or small disturbances when the drain is plugged. So sorry, no dice. Toilets generally behave the same no matter the geography.

 

Although, in the 1930's British scientists did study the effect in bathtubs in very controlled experiments and found a very minimal effect to draining. Only the Brits have that much time on their hands. And week old bath water. Although we did watch a great video from 1961 of Ascher Shapiro demonstrating drains and how to calculate velocity vectors. But that's a little dry for most people. (Dry?!! We are too funny!) (In case you need to sleep watch the video Vorticity Part 1) More info here and here.

 

But this is ok. You won't believe what happens to toilets in Japan! Watch out! And of course I found this one that isn't about toilets flushing - but fun.
 
Sincerely,
Your WC Director

Continue Reading...

Confusing Cuisine

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board
I read the ingredients of many foods I eat. Not one of them has made much sense to me. I don't remember ever learning about the chemicals listed on the back of food. Who is to say whether or not these may be cancerous? Where can I find information regarding the chemicals/ingredients of food?

Regards,
Stuck with sodium benzoate

A: Dear gastronomically, molecularly and masticatingly challenged,

Please repeat after me. "Chemicals are my friends. Chemicals are my friend." Take a deep breath.

Now that we are past that, we must realize that not all chemicals are evil, a grand consipracy, or disgusting. In fact most of them are quite helpful for you, some are helpful to the manufacturer and others are there to make food cheap and accessible. Modern food convenience, the freedom to eat a variety of interesting creations and cuisines, at prices that don't add to more than 50% of your income or 75% of your (a woman's) time, are due in part to these additions that drive down the cost of making and delivering safe food. But a lot of them aren't new. Man has been adding things to food to make them safe for years; salt, vinegar or even sulfer dioxide into wine to help control bad bacteria first added in Ancient Egypt).

But what are they? Food additives (the majority of all those chemicals on the ingredients' list) are either direct or indirect additiives. Direct additives are added to affect the actual food. Like adding niacin in wheat flour to make up for the loss of vitamins during milling. Indirect additives are leftovers from packaging, storing or making the food. For example calcium silicate (an inert salt that can't hurt you) is added to allow powders to flow in food plants. Direct additives serve one of three general purposes:

• Maintain freshness and saftey: ie. so you don't get botulism or the product doesn't stale or dry out. This has direct relation to food risks and costs.
• Improve or maintain nutrition: adding potassium iodine into table salt has been a medical marvel of our time - preventing severe thyroid issues.
• Improve taste, texture and appearance: dyes for color, stabilizers so food don't seperate, starches for mouth feel, etc. A lot of these aren't new, but they help!

Now that we've firmly established the need and usefulness of additives, how do we know they are safe? In the United States (similar in most countries) food manufacturers must apply for the use of additives in food (both direct and indirect). The Food and Drug Administration then looks at the composition and chemical properties, focus on the amount you'll eat, any short and long-term health effects (especially cancer) and other various factors. They determine a safe level (which gives you a safety margin to consume a whole lot - just in case) and then regulate the use in the food. (Note: there are some items exempted from the process because we know they are safe - like GRAS - generally frecognized as safe). Are we absolutely sure its safe? NO. But we do our best. Combined with GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) companies and the government look to deliver the best, and safest food possible.

Please note that the dangers these additions prevent are a MUCH MORE serious threat to your health than the 1 in 10,000 chance you have of being slightly sensitive to Yellow Dye #5. Botulism, samonella, e-coli, etc. are devastating diseases. So a little sodium erythorbate in your canned veggies can prevent that tiny amount of botulism that can kill you very fast (it takes a miniscule amount).

The FDA (and similar government groups) post online all the information you need to look up chemicals and determine their use. Start at www.fda.gov. There are search tools and tables. I'll give you some examples:

EDTA, BHA & BHT are all preservatives to keep food from spoiling or going rancid

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a SAFE way to add richness and flavors without their own flavor to change taste (this falls into the new taste on our tongues - savoriness).

Xanthan gum has many uses including a fat replacer and thickener to add texture.

Soy lecithin is an emulsifier - it keeps mixes of oils and waters together.

Sodium carobanate or citric acid keep the pH in control to prevent spoiling.

Glycerin retains moisture.

Ammonium sulfate strengthens dough effectively and at a lower cost for baked goods.

Calcium chloride (think similar to table salt) firms up foods - like veggies.

Having cooked directly with some of these pure chemicals, I can tell you they are useful and safe. Don't be afraid of them. But one note on general nutrition and food consumption. It is true that less processed foods are better - mostly because they retain a richer amount of nutrients and flavor than the processed kind - NOT because of these additives. I do recommend a homemade whole wheat bread, home killed, dressed and cooked meat and fresh garden veggies over alternatives. Pure foods are delicious and a delight. Do you have the time and ability for all those? When it comes to safe, effective and cheap food to keep us fed ALL year round, these additives are critical! And they are in EVERYTHING you eat - no matter if it is Green or Organic or not.

So bon appetit. Meanwhile I'm going to have a nice class of sodium benzoate with my soda.

The 100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

The Dark Side: Matters of Darkest Dark

Q: What does Dark Matter look like?

Brown Dwarf

A: Dear MACHO:

Well, I am not a scientist. The closest I come is a social scientist and even then...a poor one. To that end...the 100HB's colleagues were supposed to answer this insidious question.

Your question is only the surface of deeper questions, such as, “What is Dark Matter?”, "How does one find it?", and "What is the purpose of Dark Matter?". I am glad you are so inquisitive- you must have a striking intellect.

The name ‘dark matter’ is given to the amount of mass whose existence is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves but which until now, has escaped detections. NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Prove (WMAP) reveals that dark matter comprises 23% of the universe.


Dark Matters properties are as follows (and as argued):

• Does not emit light
• Does not absorb light
• Can be detected indirectly by its gravity
• Is invisible

So in answer to your questions as to what does it look like- invisible. Which only makes sense when you discover that while attempting to create the new invisibility cloak, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Rice University managed to create the darkest material ever made by man (0.045% reflection which beats out the current 1.4%). That is “Dark Matter”.
Scientifically, if one were to accept the Big Bang Theory, one would have to agree that something (or someone) organized matter to form the galaxies. Our galaxy is the Milky Way. The Milky Way contains about 100 billion stars. On still larger scales, individual galaxies are concentrated into groups, or what astronomers call clusters of galaxies. These all had to be organized. But by what? Some would argue God. Some would argue dark matter. The force, or glue, that holds the cluster together is gravity -- the mutual attraction of everything in the Universe for everything else. The space between galaxies in clusters is filled with a hot gas. In fact, the gas is so hot (tens of millions of degrees!) that it shines in X-rays instead of visible light. By studying the distribution and temperature of the hot gas we can measure how much it is being squeezed by the force of gravity from all the material in the cluster. This allows scientists to determine how much total material (matter) there is in that part of space.

Remarkably, it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. Current research is using the identification of dark matter in hopes to locate Black Holes. Dr. Prisin Chen of the Stanford Linear Accelerator center says:

"If a sufficient amount of small black holes can be produced in the early Universe, then the resultant remnants, which are stable and interact only through gravity, can be an interesting candidate for dark matter."

According to Nasa, there is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole. In short…no one knows but God.

PS - By the other colleague:
The 100 Hour Board encourages self-discovery and self-learning (ie finding out yourself, and not just discovering, yes indeed you have an arm on the left side). For this reason 1/2 of the board has directed the other 1/2 to answer their own D$#@ quesiton.
And to good results. Excellent presentation of the facts and understanding in science. Some quick notes.
All of this must be framed in the light (ha ha) that all science is theory, and usually (esp in physics) a way to mathematically conform reality (observation) to a model. What fits. For example the entanglement effect (think quantum teleporation) was first predicted mathmatically than proven. String theory is just a series of math proofs. So dark matter and energy are essentially solutions to a very VERY long math problem.
We also "see" dark matter by the way we see objects. That is the dark matter deflects actual positions of matter into an Einstein ring.
All of this (and a really cool experiment you can try at home to "see" what Einstein rings look like - minute 6:45 on) is best explained by a fantastic video from TED by Patricia Burchat. I encourage you to view. Here is also the link.


We encourage you to check out TED more.

Continue Reading...

Licking the Salt Stone

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board,

Why does watermelon taste sweeter when you put salt on it?

Georgia Inquisitive

A: Dear Peachy Keen on an Answer,

People do a lot of things with their watermelon. Some better than others. They eat it. Pickle the rinds. Cut into wedges, squares, balls and strips. Juice it. Salt it. Some even (so we've heard) drill a hole in it and pour libations therein. (The 100 Hour Board loves to shave it in thin slices and serve with cucumber slices with prosciutto and lemon olive oil. But we digress). We've even seen pictures of little kids with watermelon that is worn rather than eaten.

But why salt it?

The 100 Hour Board - in our infinite wisdom - will tell you the reasons, both the simple, the most likely and the probable. So sit back with a slice of pink and green, pull up a can for spittin' seeds and enjoy. (Just don't spill on the keyboard. IBM doesn't like the sticky keys.)

The short answer - salt doesn't make your watermelon sweeter, just seem that way. It works too with all sorts of fruits, especially: tomatoes, melons, pineapple, mangoes, papayas and even wine (again - so we hear). We'll give you the top three reason this works.

1. Seasoning. Salt is the ultimate season. (that's as seasoning not spring or fall) As a primary taste (along with sweet, bitter, sour and umami - the newly found one) it adds depth to things we eat. For a long time it was thought we had individual taste buds for each taste type. But currently, "electrophysiological evidence indicates that although some cells are especially responsive to specific types of stimulus, they also respond to other taste stimuli to varying degrees as well." To quote a recent cartoon rat. Think of taste like music, with each taste a layer that works in harmony to make a symphony. Salt is like a major bass note - supports a whole lot to make things tasty. Add a little salt, and things taste better. A little more and the full flavors come really out. A little more and it begins to get salty. Balance is the key. So a little salt on that melon will enhance the flavor as it plucks the strings of your taste bud.


2. Vacuoles. Plant cells contain little pockets inside that act as little storage depots. Some are temporary garbage dumps. In plants, they can be 90% of the volume in the cell. Plant vacuoles, especially in fruit cells designed to be tasty and enticing, are full of the sweet nectar we animals love. All those complex flavours, acids and the like fill those delicious bubbles. As we eat, these burst inside cells and fill our mouth with acids, sugars and other chemicals. The idea is that when we add salt, osmotic pressures (more salt on one side of the cell wall, can help lyse - break or drive out - the flavourful liquid. Thus the fruit is oozing with goodness sooner in the tasting process - before we need to chew it up. This is much like a fruit ripening and beginning to decompose to be tastier.


3. Balance. This is a little more touchy a reason - but important. We talked about strings on the taste chord. But balancing the sweet - sour, bitter - sweet, salty - acid, etc. balances are important. Fruits really need to get the sour/sweet thing right. In fact there is a lot of sour in unripe fruits to keep you away from them until they are ready. Then out comes the sweet big time. It seems that fruits with especially high sugar to acid ratios (a lot more sugar than acid) are well suited to salting. These include (with their ratio) grapes (80), melons (40-50), bananas (60), papaya (80) and even cactus pear (110). But there are exceptions: pineapple (6), strawberries (6) and grapefruit (8) which are served well by a salting - which may point to a different balance salt helps find. (Too much sugar or too little). Maybe that is why we typically leave apples (13), peaches (25) and plums (17) alone.

Odd mixes of chemicals really can bring out the best of tastes. Salt is just the beginning. So keep on eating melon with a shaker my friend. And open your melon mind to try it out on a couple other things. But don't be afraid of other things. Pure cocoa in a tomato sauce for example really helps bring out that non-acidic or sweet tomato flavour (umami! like glutamate).

A very hungry 100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

You Can Say That Again...You Can Say That Again

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board:

Why do "identical" twins have different finger prints?- Not so identical are they?

Irish Twin

A: Dear Celtic Brother,

Having an identical twin certainly does have its benefits: a free friend, an automatic transplant organ source, and a diabolical crime partner. Imagine you rob a bank, or knock-off somebody, and can blame it on your twin. The jury would never know who really committed the crime - and given just DNA evidence - either would Grissolm or the CSI team (no matter how much Prada they wear)! But if you left a fingerprint, it is true, the coppers could tell you apart from your twin. (Or if you have an identifiable tattoo that leads an eyewitness to correctly pick you apart).

Now, if you're being that nitty-gritty about it, identical twins don't exactly have the same DNA. They start out with the same zygoate (single fertilized egg) that splits: so on Day 1 they have the same genetics. But over time the environment inside the womb - and eventually outside - will change the DNA. Even naturally occurring mistakes in gene translation will cause differences. But things like different temperatures, blood flow, food, nutrients, position, etc in the womb can change the genes. Heck, DNA isn't even the same in all parts of your body. (Dr Starr, Stanford U)

Fingerprints are an amplified piece of this puzzle. The pattern of whorls, arches, loops are dermal ridges which are at first determined by genetic code in the baby. Around the 13th week of pregnancy the baby develops these, however immediately they are changed and influenced by the surroundings - ie. mother. Touching the amniotic sac, their face, what they eat, etc. changes the patterns slightly. But the changes are dramatically amplified in the patterns we see and therefore offer a distinguishing feature between twins.

Identical twins, similarly, aren't that identical when born. Their other features and genetics have the same influence of environment. This is all referred to as phenotype - the way we or species look. Genotype (DNA) + environment + random variables = Phenotype.

So yes. That extra helping of General Zhaos chicken when you are preggo could make your kid's fingerprints randomly closer to a mass murderer. You never know.

100 Hour Board

Oh and PS: Chance of having twins 1:40, identical twins 1:240, spontaneous fraternal twins 1:60, two sets of fraternal twins 1:5

Continue Reading...

Yes...We Have No Bananas

Q: Dear 100hrb

You've shown time and time again that you truly know all the answers. so i will turn to you for another solution... where do seeds from lettuce, radishes, and carrots come from?

Regards,

a green thumb...

A: Dear Vermilion Opposable Digit,

Ah, we at the 100 Hour Board love when our readers begin thinking more about their food (we also love the unabashed ego-stroking). There is so much wonder to be found in what we eat. Amazing things really. For example, that broccoli, cabbage, brussel sprouts, broccoli rabe, cauliflower, etc. are all really just slightly differently developed plants. Man has been at it for quite a while.

So before we get too far, lettuce take a look at your question. A little anatomy is needed first. Plants have roots, stems, leaves and flowers - usually. A vegetable is really the part of a plant we eat that is not either fruit or seed (like wheat or rice). Fruits come from the plants ovary and surrounds the seeds. And then we use herbs (green parts) and spices (non-green parts). Vegetables are leaves, stems, pods, roots, storage vessels, bulbs, etc. Fruits are unique in that they are specifically grown to be yummy, in order to spread seeds. Veggies are things we have either become used to eating (bitterness), or we alter in some way to make them safe (soak, cook, beat, pound, etc.)

So in the case of all vegetables, there is another part of the plant that is an ovary and produces seeds. These then grow into other vegetables. We usually eat around these fruits, or eat the veggie before the flowers/seeds develop. There are few plants to we eat almost everything on it, usually we develop a breed for a specific part. Like beets and chard are the same plants, but we develop them differently to get good, big beets, or large leaves.

Take lettuce then. If left to grow it sprouts flowers - lots of them - this is called bolting. Of course we eat lettuce before it gets to this point, usually. Dandelion greens are delicious, and you are quite familiar with the flower.

Radishes are not roots - although some will dangle off. They are mostly a swollen stem, like a turnip, that isn't starchy like potatoes. But radishes are relatives of the cabbage family (even mustards too - which you may be more familiar with the seeds and flowers). They get flowers too - nice white ones with four leaves.

What does this mean for veggies then? You usually harvest - and kill - the ones you eat, and then dedicate another crop for developing seeds. There are a few perennials - like rhubarb, asparagus (grow from underground rhizomes) and Good King Henry. But many of these are not grown now because it is easier to harvest plants completely than parts of them.

Fruits are perennial, essential to the plants reproduction. So things we think of as having seeds (or eating them) are fruits: peas, beans, tomatoes, squash, artichoke - ok really a flower, etc. Fruits come from the plants ovary - usually in a flower - that has 4 steps: is fertilized (male pollen + female ovule - thank you bees!), fruit development, storage growth and ripening. There are exceptions. And thus are born "seedless" fruits.

Seedless plants are either 1) bred to be sterile - chromosomes prevent seed growth, like melons (though the sterile triploid plant must grow next to the unsterile diploid plant to get pollen) or 2)they are created without fertilization - like bananas, pineapples, grapes and naval oranges.

The issue with seedless fruits is they are a target for parasites or diseases b/c they are usually clones of each other.

Plant cultivation for food is a fascinating topic. We take for granted the years of cultivation, technology, breeding and science in what we eat. The 100 Hour Board for one is very interested in getting their own garden growing. But Community Supported Agriculture is also a good idea.

So - happy eating. Olive you to your food.

100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

Juice is Worth the Squeeze

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board,

I love orange juice. But I hate bad orange juice, you know, bitter or off-tasting. Given the many seasons, the different oranges, weather, etc that when you open any Tropicana Orange Juice bottle they all taste the same? Magic?

OJ

A: Dear Mr. Simpson?

Orange juice is a real delight, especially that fine product "bottled" by Tropicana. A direct product of squeezing - you guessed it - oranges, the product is full of vitamin C (ascorbic acid - good to prevent scurvy) and potassium. Orange juice comes fresh, frozen, concentrated and canned. Concentrated has been a staple of orange juice consumption for a long time, in fact the 100 Hour Board has manufactured it themselves in a lab setting under vacuum. It is even traded on the mercantile exchange as a commodity. (Trading at about $120.45 / side or contract. Contract = 15,000lbs juice).

But our friends at Tropicana have been doing things differently since 1947 - started by Italian Rossi in western Florida. Although it is now owned by PepsiCo. All the juice is fresh - never concentrate - and typically 100% orange juice. Although several additives are combined including calcium, vitamin D, and sometimes extra citric and malic acid to add acidity to counter calcium. Though all the product is pasteurized for safety. So Tropicana begins with a fresh quality product. Do note that over time vitamin C dissipates from the juice, and so is higher in the larger bottles.

Distribution is also unique. From the beginning delivering fresh orange juice was key, and Rossi invested in dedicated trains and ships, including the SS Tropicana which carried 1.5 million gallons of orange juice a week to NY. Even now Tropicana operates the Tropicana-CSX Juice Trains which deliver great, fresh and protected cargo around the country. You can see the Tropicana terminal in Port Newark off to the right side as you head on the I-78 Extension East.

But how about the standard taste all the time? According to Cathy at Tropicana's Cunsumer Response the company focuses on proven blending of orange juice. Although a 8 oz glass takes 3-4 oranges, it more likely contains portions of thousands. Mass blending of quality product ensures a uniform, predictable product that offsets the bitter ones.

Cathy went on to tell the 100 Hour Board about the orange choices:

"We always blend Valencia in with our juice because it is the best tasting variety for juice. We also use other varieties including: ~ Hamlin, Pineapple Sweet, Parson Brown (and, if from Brazil, Valencia and Pera) "

Then she added a caveat to the whole piece:

"Certainly, we don't want to give away all of our secrets (for competitive reasons), but we hope our response is helpful." Examples could fall into quality control methods, expert juicers, chemical analysis, production methods (like the squeezing process) and the like. Measure of quality include brix (sugar % by weight), acidity, citrus oil level, pulp level, pulp cell integrity, color, viscosity, microbiological contamination, mouth feel, and taste.

Hope this sheds some light on that delicious morning treat. I may try their new product Valencia Tropicana Pure. At this site you can experience the "see, hear and feel the flavor." Like listening to the music written specifically as inspired by the juice. Or creating the 'visual' experience yourself. I offer my own creation:

And lastly you can 'feel' the flavor by remixing the music yourself. Again, a shot of my creation:

It's worth a gander.

100HB

Continue Reading...

Greening the Diamond

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board

How do major league grounds crews get the grass looking so green on opening day before the normal blossoms of spring ~ thank you george toma.

Pat

A: Dear Baseball Aficionado,

Care and love. It is possible. Although I assume you are asking about colder weather parks and not just Turner Field or Tropicana Field. (Although Tropicana Field in Tampa Bay uses artificial grass) Of course there are fundamentals. It is only recently that ballparks are switching back to real grass en masse. There was a long trend of artificial turf because it stayed green consistently. Water management remained the biggest issue. Nowadays all 16 National League teams and all but 3 American League teams use grass. (Tampa Bay, Minnesota and Toronto don't - hmmm...maybe no sun :) )

Newer fields are a work of magic - or smart engineering. I can only quote the system at Dodger stadium to give you an idea:

"The Dodgers installed a brand new state-of-the-art grass field after the conclusion of the 1995 season. Prescription Athletic Turf (PAT), created and installed by the Cincinnati-based Motz Group, used the latest agronomic and engineering technology to manage field moisture through controlled drainage and irrigation. The 100,000 square feet of bermuda grass is grown on pure sand, beneath which a vacuum chamber is laid over a water-tight plastic barrier that forcibly extracts water during heavy rains. New moisture gauges monitor the field's water level in coordination with a microprocessor that controls drainage functions. A computer controller has the ability to reverse the scenario and subirrigate when the sand's moisture reading drops below the optimal level."

So proper water management is key. Other pieces? From an interview with Boston's Fenway Park Ground Crew, steps include: watering the field, cleaning up, moving, removing and changing the tarp (a hard job - it can create a vacuum when sitting for a while), fertilize, mow, roll patterns, spread chopped up rubber tires into the grass (protects for wear and tear), and finally repaint lines. This all helps.

But I found an article from Baseball Field Renovation that offers tips on how to get grass green (and grown) by Feb/March start. Rye, fescue and bluegrass seeds need sunny weather over 50 degrees to germinate well. Sometimes that is just luck. But tips include light straw, minimum water layup, black tarps to keep seeds warm to germinate (but remove it before it kills new grass), automatic irrigation systems and fertilizer. Another tip - seed every two weeks through January. Of course if you plant before the winter it's just maintaining the field and covering it at night.

And how do they get the checkerboard? Easy. Mow and roll it flat. The bent grass gives the patterns. But make sure you alternate rolling to keep from damaging the grass too much. Now go watch some ball!

100 HB

PS and if you didn't know George Toma - the legendary 'God of Sod'. Mostly a grass consultant for the NFL, he's an old timer the pros turn to for 'live or die' grass. Multiple Superbowls, World Series and other events are under his belt. Yes - thank you!

Continue Reading...

Science Attack

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board:
(Continued from before)
3. Please explain in simple ways (so that we who are oh so stupid) why gravity is so weak and the 6 dimension.
4. Why are scientific books written in a demeaning and authoritative voice? They are really condescending as though they know all when in fact you get reading the book and there are so many questions unanswered. Do scientists think that if they right with absolute authority then they won't have to defend their theories?

Your Bro

A: Dear Bro,

Way to ask the scientific questions. I'll help you get down to the answers.
3. Gravity is somewhat mysterious, but can be explained and discussed in simpler ways. It doesn't need to be dark and scary. Gravity is actually very cool.
Gravitation is the realisation that all mass attracts each other. Gravity refers to the force some suppose causes gravitation. Why? What the 100 Hour Board can't answer is what exactly is the mechanism of gravity. Newton described gravitation as a force between two bodies - the force is gravity. This theory doesn't really work out perfectly, like for planets as an example. Einstein discussed the force as a bending of spacetime, and causing gravity as acceleration. This is a powerful theory but has some failures on the quantum level (i.e for really small particles). Quantum mechanics uses the theory that objects exchange gravitons (wave-particles, kind of like photons used in electricity) that cause a force of attraction (like two baseball players throwing balls back and forth). This is good too, but fails to completely describe things totally. So there is no perfect model for gravity.
What we do know is what we observe and how we approximate this in math. Several rules on the gravitational force: proportional to both masses (not weight - that's based on the pull of another mass), decreases proportionally to the inverse square of the distance (1/x^2) - ie. drops off quickly the farther you get away and is relatively weak compared to mass. The formula is Gravitational force = G x (m1 x m2) / d^2 (d is distance, m1 is mass 1 and m2 is mass 2). G is a constant that is calculated to fit (a smart guess) = 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm2/gm2. Yes small! Electricity (and magnetism) have similar equations. But the constant for electricity is 1020 times larger than G. You can't compare them exactly, but to get anything strong with gravity you have to be close and one of the objects massive (ie. earth).
To let you know - electrons keep you from falling through the sidewalk when gravity is pulling you down! That's strong - b/c they are pretty tiny.
Why is this so? Can't really say - we don't totally understand. In quantum mechanics electrical forces are governed by spin 1 particles and gravity by spin 2 particles. Confused - so are physicists. If you can figure it out - unify forces - there is a Nobel prize for you. To make it worse, some people think that all forces are connected and actually stem from one electron that is wrapped around the universe millions of times. Freaky, huh?
Is the dimension a 2nd question? Because there are really 4 dimensions in classical relativity (3D in space and time). But millions of dimensions when you include other things (mass, brightness, electrical charge, etc. etc.) Just another way to describe things. nothing says that gravity is 'the 6th dimension.'

4. As for scientific books, I believe your question mostly stems from a matter of opinion - relative position. Let us understand about science. It is only theory. Science is based on observations, hypothesis and developing a model. It changes all the time. The best that can be said, is that current science is the best way we can describe life at this time. So no - any scientist that writes a book has no authority to be the end all authority.
But generally books are written for two audiences: the unscientific and colleagues. There are fantastic books written for 'unscientific' people, with calm, humble explanations for people who do not have all the background. Other books for colleagues generally are written with presupposed knowledge. If you read them and don't have this, it can come off condescending. But finally there is a phenomenon in scientific writing. A need to prove authority. Each writer is trying their best to show a 'bullet proof' theory, knowing their work will be heavily attacked by sceptics. Must they be condescending in their stance? No, but they usually are otherwise people will reject them. It's like trying to prove you are king of the jungle. So some good ones? The Universe on a T-Shirt (fantastic!), Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene's works. There are some treasures there. So keep on reading.
100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

No Reindeer Were Hurt

Q: Dear 100hr board,
What the heck does "gamey" mean?? For example: My husband tries to tell me that something tastes "gamey" and I just don't get what it is that makes it so.
Regards,
"Meat is Murder, Tasty Tasty Murder"

A: Dear Wild Game Inquisitor,

I understand your frustratation, because although difficult to define by taste, there is something to 'gaminess,' that is the taste and texture of wild animal meats. I'll try to best explain.
Meat (I won't define this, assuming you get the idea) is made up of three sections: muscle fibers, connective tissue and fat. Each contributes to flavor and texture in their own way. Muscle fibers are either white or red (white muscles are for quick motions - like a chicken, red for strength - like an ox) which defines dark/white meat, and the differences in pork, poultry and beef. Connective tissues can be really tough (elastin) or when cooked - quite good - collagen - the stuff that makes gelatin and the good taste of roasts. Fat marbling offers 'juiciness' and 'tenderness' in meat.
Muscle has distinct flavors, especially red meat, and especially when cooked. Fat, though, is what gives types of meat its distinct taste. So what influences taste? Animal age, diet, muscle activity and type of muscle. The older an animal is, the more flavor it develops, and gets tougher as the muscles work and develop stronger connective tissues. That's why mutton is stronger than lamb, beef than veal. And diet is a big influence. Beef and chicken in the US are fed fairly standardized diets. And tend to yield mild meat.
So what is gaminess? The mixture of texture and flavor qualities unique to those meats: low fat, tougher cuts better for longer cooking and distinct flavors. The rich, variable flavor (not as 'standardized' as super market chicken) comes from older age, a wild, mixed diet and free roaming. But in the past, some cuisines have let game hang and begin to essentially rot to enhance the flavors. (Oddly, strong flavors - like cheese - often dance near the edge of rotten food flavors)
So if someone eats some meat and says it is gamey, it means essentially (if they know what they are talking about) it is overly strong, hints towards grasses and chemicals in wild food, and is leaner and tougher. You can't get wild game widely commercially in the US - not regulated by USDA - but you can get the idea at restaurants with 'wild' boar, phaesant and ostrich.
If you are vegetarian and not meat-minded, vegetables can be gamey too. Organic - or better put - in season fruits and veggies are the equivalent of 'gamey' vs domesticated meats. But it is harder to find wild packs of carrots or herds of eggplants sweeping across a plain.
Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go find some bone to chew on. I'm craving some meat!
100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

A Little Bubbly

Q: Dear 100hr board,

What is the difference between seltzer and club soda?

Me

A: Dear "Me"

Excellent question - especially if you are looking to get some stains out of your clothes. Or your husbands as he has a tendency to drop things on them.

In short, seltzer water and club soda are essentially the same thing: purified water with carbonation added to it. But there are some subtle differences in modern usage, so I will explain. First, carbonation is the addition of carbon dioxide gases into water to make it bubbly. This also adds carbonic acid H2CO3 to the water, giving it that slight acrid, tangy taste we are familiar with. I'll offer you a quick timeline to help.

• Original seltzer is bottled from an effervescent mineral water in Niederseltzers Germany
• 1767: Artificial carbonation is invented in england by Joseph Priestley
• 1807: Benjamin Silliman of Yale sells the first commercial seltzer water
• 1830: Lemon-lime, grape and orange, sweet soda water is sold and popular
• 1838: First soda counter in Phillie
• 1891: More soda fountains in NYC than bars
• 1886: Kola nut extract added to coca extract (yes cocaine) as a headache and hangover fix and sold by John S. Permberton in a pharmacy - Coca Cola begins
• 1893: My hero Hires invents root beer (also a pharmacist)
• 1920's: "Hom-Paks" (6-packs) and vending machines invented
• 2006: Coca-Cola made $24 Billion on 'soft drinks'

Now days seltzer water and club soda are basically interchangeable, but club soda ussually has addeds salts for taste (sodium bicarbonate - i.e baking soda, table salt, potassium chloride, etc.) That's why the 100 Hour Board prefers cranberry and seltzer over cranberry and club soda (but some bartenders don't know the difference). Club soda is a great stain remover - including wine. Just ask for some at the restaurant.

The real question is: if you get a club soda stain, what do you use to get it out?

100 HB

Continue Reading...

Keeps the Doctor Away...

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board:

Which part of the apple is healthier for you...the skin or the inside?

80

A: Dear Fruit Connoisseur:

Great question. Food and science - my favorite combination Let's start with the obviously gratuitous download of facts.

Apples, malus x domestica, was first domesticated in Kazakhstan, spread across the Middle East in Greece, on to Rome and the rest of Europe. There a quite a variety of crossbred apples, but mainly 4 types: cider, eating (desert), cooking and dual-purpose.

Apples are fruit, a developed part of the plant ovary that contains seeds and some form of transport material. Sometimes these are spikes or feathery things, but for apples the plant develops some storage tissue that is tasty solely for the purpose to be eaten by animals that the seeds will be transported away. It is not necessarily meant to be a meal - just tempting (like the serpent's apple). Not much in nutritional value: proteins, fats, but it has sugars and a whole host of vitamins. Add in some antioxidants, a few toxins at times and fiber (cellulose, hemi-cellulose and other plant matter) and you have yourself an apple.

Now to your question. Best answered with some math:

The difference in the two:

Medium apple skin
Energy g 18
Energy kj 75
Protein g 0.05
Total lipid (fat) g 0.10
Ash g 0.08
Carbohydrate g 4.59
Fiber g 2.3
Sugars g 2.65

Compare the two? Skin is definitely not more nutritious than the inside as a total - but considering it is a small portion of the apple, per ounce it is more nutritious. It does have over half the fiber of the apple, so if you're looking for ruffage and regularity eat the peel.

(All number courtesy from Nutrient Data Laboratory from the USDA.

100 Hour Board - I'm hungry now

Continue Reading...

Inside Out

Q: Dear 100 Hour Board:
Apparently, that is some sort of really cool inside joke, Scoreboards. [In reference to the post "Pedal Your Way to Taxes")
Which leads to the question, how do inside jokes differ from any other jokes? Just because two people know it rather than 3 or more?Please explain to me the difference.
Sincerely,
The Butt

A: Dear Butt of the Joke

Inside jokes are not numerically specified. In-jokes are only identified by requiring a priori information in order to understand the humor. The group sizes can be large (although at least must be one less than the number of people on earth to be designated an 'inside joke'. Unless of course all living people have an in-joke, excluding all the dead or unborn ones. But that seems unlikely). Groups include; friends, family, frats, clubs, professions, races, communities, businesses, aficionados, and so on.
That you aren't in the know on these jokes just demonstrates the horribly lonely life you must lead. Just remember, they are not laughing with you, they are laughing at you. I suppose you could even have an inside joke with yourself - or with someone like Gwitter.
And no, the scoreboard joke was not an in-joke, just required mental acuity.
I offer you several examples of inside jokes:

A physicist, a mathematician, and an engineer are sitting around and one of them says "It says here that Professor X has come up with a new theorem that all odd numbers greater than 2 are prime". Each person present thinks to himself:
Mathematician: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, the rest follows by Mathematical induction.
Physicist: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is an experimental error, 11 is prime...
Engineer: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is approximately prime, 11 is prime, 13 is prime ...
Mechanical engineer: 3 is prime, 4 is prime, 5 is prime, 6 is prime...
Computer engineer: 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 7 is prime, 7 is prime...

or

A mathematician, a biologist and a physicist are sitting in a street café watching people entering and leaving the house on the other side of the street. First they see two people going into the house. Time passes. After a while they notice three persons coming out of the house. The physicist says, "The measurement wasn't accurate." The biologist says, "They must have reproduced." The mathematician says, "If one more person enters the house then it will be empty."

Now these are highly dependent on your scientific foreknowledge. I'll let you decipher them. But I think they're funny. (Especially the computer engineer... :) )

Or one of my favorite is Isaac Asimov's work on tiotimoline, that is so soluble in water, it actually dissolves 1.12 seconds before it comes in contact with it. (Because of the 2 carbon atoms that project into the future and into the past). But I save that for a different post.
Oh and if you don't like this post you can go hopscotch with a camel (you'd get that if you only knew).
Best Regards,
100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

All that Colour

Q: Dear I-Know-You'll-Always-Be-Smarter-Than-Me-100-Hour-Board,

I've read that trees use energy to change the pigment of their leaves in the fall. So, why bother? If this is truly a Darwinian world what possible evolution breakthrough could possible make trees benefit from this? And was there a time when the trees didn't change the pigment of their leaves?

Regards,

A 100-Hr-Board-Wannabe-Critchlow

PS. Why don't you ever comment on Critchlow's Counter?

A: Dear 'Kritchlow'

What the heck is a critchlow anyway? I mean I do think it is hugely more scary than any monster in myth - this 'small, aged, hairy man'. And he tells stories at a counter? Don't you sell anything? Counters are for counting things or selling goods. A hearth, table, den I can understand, but unless your selling me BS, I don't get the counter thing.

As to fall colors. Your first statement is true and false. Some leaves require energy to change color, others don't. Here's the 50,000ft overview first.

• Chlorophyll is used to turn photons into energy used in the CAM cycle of plants to undertake carbon fixation - turning CO2 and water into sugar.


• Chlorophyll is green and makes leaves green.


• Chlorophyll is constantly destroyed by the sunlight and must be replaced.


• The tree slowly shuts down chlorophyll production (clogs the arteries with cork) to slow down energy production as the winter months come. This is a function of weather, drought, age, time cycle from the first leaves, etc. Basically that the energy required to keep the leave healthy and move food around is not justified by the decreased food production in low light months.


• Food is moved from the leaves into the tree slowly in the transition. This takes energy (remember this). You need to keep part of the factory functioning as you tear it down.


• Remaining energy is in the leaves as they fall and used as fertilizer as it rots.


• When chlorophyll dies carotenoids in the leave (that have always been there) emerge from the 'masking' green color - these are yellow, brown and orange (they color carrots, corn, etc.) THIS color change requires NO energy b/c it is a side affect of chlorophyll balance changing.


• BUT...here's where your question comes in...some trees PRODUCE anthcyanins (reds, purples) as the summer winds down and fall comes. This does take energy. And in cooler night temps it happens more (more vibrant colors in bright days - cool nights).
  

So why? Doesn't make sense that trees would still use more energy to create a colour change as the leaves. There are two theories to date (many have come and gone over time).

• Photoprotection: The new colors absorb light and dissipate it as heat. This protects the leaf from damaging rays as the leaf slowly dies. This goes well into the preserve energy production as the leaf shuts down.


• Coevolution: Red leaves may serve as a signal to aphids that they shouldn't eat here. Or that 'specialized' ones should. This is a coevolved function. Although isn't as wide spread to be the whole truth. Some birds and animals are attracted to the leaves perhaps helping with seed distribution.

The truth is probably a combination of the two, that has evolved over time. Sort of like the evolutionary reason young, poorer portions of the population rely on bling (I swear this is a valid evolutionary study...we can talk about that sometime).

So for now - enjoy the leaves changing. I did last week on a drive to Pittsburgh. Oh wow - incredible.

Happy Fall,

100 Hour Board

PS - As to the question of posting on Critchlow's blog...I offer the following reasons:

• Perfection needs no comment


• If art demands critique than is it really art?


• Lack of interesting topics - I mean fart jokes? Really?


• Still confused on why I should talk to a little, hairy old man with the inability to eat ruffage


• I don't need to add any pithy, sarcastic remarks to make you look bad


• I'll wait until you stop making fun of the 100 Hour Board with a link titled "Stupid ?s Dumber Answers"
  

Continue Reading...

Time After Time

Q: Dear 100-hour board,
Is the concept which we know as "time" a fundamentally man-made concept, divine creation, or natural law? Hope you aren't 'late' to provide an answer, seeing as how this mysterious concept called time governs the all-powerful board it's self!
BBB

A: Dear Clock Confused:

The 100 Hour Board finally feels challenged by such a wide and deep topic as brought up in your question, and hopes there is sufficient…um…well time to address this issue. I will try to keep the conversation above the deep philosophical, religious and scientific trenches one can stumble into when wading this ocean of inquiry. But I can only try.

Time is Relative (Philosophy)
Interestingly to note, time is viewed to be one of two general concepts, championed by Newton and Leibniz. I say interestingly because these two physicist/scientist/philosophers were constantly at odds in their work – for example arguing on fundamental approaches to calculus (both were right – we use derivatives AND integrals – one stemming from each). Newton, and all realists, believe time is a fundamental, integral part of the universe. And all events occur in a sequence separated by this dimension of time. Leibniz however held that time was purely a human creation, to help the comprehension of interrelated events.
Many a philosopher have argued this, some holding time is unreal, others that it is fundamental to existence. And it isn’t a new argument – with records back to 5BC and also some from St. Augustine.

Tesseracts (Science)
Philosophy and science meld into one gray area, especially in older science, but modern physics holds that time is a fundamental unit of the universe. It has a direction (although Steven Hawking suggests that perhaps we are traveling backward in time and don’t realize it) generally forward. (“Lisa – in this household we obey the Laws of Entropy” Homer Simpson) Time is relative in motion and in relation to events, but was fixed in relation to the speed of light (300K km/second) by Einstein. This constant helps fix time (with space) as real. (Though we can now technically stop and freeze light – but that’s a different entry). And Einstein was a proponent of spacetime – that space (distance) and time are tied in one ‘substance’ like mass. So it bends, forms and has character.
This is all well and good – but remember that science is always a model of ‘reality’, a representation that fits mathematically. What is real is left to metaphysics (see above).

And the Sun Stood Still (Religion)
Most all main religions describe time as real and a part of God. (Thomas Acquinas uses this when he proves God’s existence by discussing God’s existing before us – Ontological proofs) Some believe it is cyclical, others linear. Though for Judeo-Christians there is relative time – think of God’s day and man’s. In the LDS Church, time is a fundamental part of God and life. God’s time is ‘slower’ relatively, Abraham shows that ‘one day’ for the Lord is a 1000 years. Events occur in succession (creation, 2nd Coming, etc.) although the Atonement is infinite. All things have a law that determines ‘times and seasons.’ Some stumble on statements like “all time being before the Lord,” but this is more a statement of omniscience than the non-existence of time.

So what is the truth? Depends on what is real. The 100 Hour Board firmly believes it is real and fundamental. And we’ve already taken up too much of yours.

Regards,
Father Time

Continue Reading...

Fundemental Numbers

Q: Dear 100? Hour Board,
How many licks does it take to reach the center of a tootsie pop? It may be an aged old question, but I mean the owl in the dumb commercial toys with you by biting it by the third time. Does is vary on saliva excretion or what? Perhaps the Rolling Stones offered the true answer with "40 Licks," but honestly how many?
And on that note, how many hours does it take to get to the center of a 100-hour Board Question?
Regards,
80? 90? Whatever it Takes
A: Dear Lick Confused:
This is an age old question - or at least dates back to 1970 when the first Tootsie Roll Pop commercial aired discussing the question, "How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of Tootsie Roll pop?" Now I have never scientifically tried this out, owing to the fact that once I get to the thin barrier of remaining sucker around the tootsie roll I stop and discard the pop. I hate Tootsie Rolls, I'd rather drink Caro syrup (you know who you are!!) than eat it. So I never get to the center. It's like an asymptote in math - it never quite meets the answer and continues on to infinity.
Now there have been multiple responses and some scientific studies into this problem - the Sweets Company of America state they have received over 50,000 responses to the question ranging all over the place (from 100 to over 5000). They also site 3 studies:
Engineering students at Purdue built a tongue-licking machine that tested pops. Their number? 364. 20 Humans tried it also and averaged 252 licks.
A U Mich engineering student recorded his licking machine took 411
Swathmore students tried a human trial that averaged 144 licks
Interestingly, an elementary school study said it takes an average 9 minutes to get there.
It all comes down to some fundamental questions - like: what is defined by a lick? Are they the same every time? Do you rotate the pop? Do you count licking in the same place to the center? What other hobby could you pick up besides trying this out? Are you Gene Simmons and have an abnormally large tongue?
If you'd like to view the video please see below:(I couldn't get the video uploaded for some reason - please rely on the link) Commercial
Regards,
Sweet Tooth 100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...

Gunshot, rings out like a bell...

Q: Dear Science-Minded 100 Hour Board:

Here is one that has been bugging me since I had a friend ask me this question and could not provide a good answer.Often in television crime and law shows they flout the crime scene investigators ability to match individual recovered bullets to the guns that they have been fired from due to distinct markings that are left behind on the fired round from the rifling in the firearm. Furthermore, they claim that each and every firing pin (the part which strikes the primer, setting off the cartage) leaves a distinct mark on each spent casing. With how much reliability can crime scene investigators match guns to bullets and casings? I'm skeptical of this science due to the precise manufacturing standards that modern firearms seem to be subject to, and the many variables (such as powder and lead fouling in the barrels) which undoubtedly alter the effects a gun has on rounds (altho very slightly) each time a round is fired. Is this hype that "CSI", "Law and Order", and every other crime show on television in love with grounded in sound practice, or is it another hollywood-hyped fairytale? Hope you are up for the challenge!By the way, roast beef sounds great right now! :)
Sincerely,
Grissolm

A: Dear Purveyor of CSI Myth,

This is a tricky one. Because the answer is yes AND no. Let me dive in a little to help you some.
First off, obviously most TV crime dramas are exaggerated. You have people like Horatio Cane solving crimes, making arrests and even leading a SWAT team into a den of Columbian drug lords (while wearing shades). If my public servants were able to wear Prada and drive Hummers I'd be a little PO'd. So it throws out the window police procedure, reality and even common sense. Then all the available technology (real or imagined) is there at the push of a button. So we obviously take this with a grain of salt.
But...there is some truth to ballistic forensics. Ballistic forensics is made up of four parts: internal, transition, external and impact ballistics. These are fairly obvious, and lead to examples like laser targeting, trajectory, distance to victim, etc. You are interested in internal, the path through the gun.
Ballistic fingerprinting (or better ballistic signature) is the science (yes a science) of matching a bullet and/or casing to the gun that fired it. First the bullet type is identified to rule out gun types (.22 cal from a .22cal gun, etc.) Bullets do leave striations (lines and markings) caused by travel down a barrel. Typically these are unique to gun type and manufacturer. Smith & Wesson has a right turn rifling in the barrel that leaves distinct marks, number of turns per inch, etc. These can help investigators narrow down gun type. Or even better, eliminate guns from consideration (not the weapon used). You are generally correct, manufacturing methods make reliable grooves from barrel to barrel. However, polishing can't always take out imperfections and wear can affect the look of the bullet. So 'fingerprints' can change over time. This CAN help identify guns.
But bullets are often deformed. Cartridge identification is even better - because they are intact - and can identify make, model, etc.
Generally ballistic fingerprinting gives a: yes, no or maybe answer. And variations in all of the above can lead to a distinct matching of firearm to bullet. But forget databases. The two that are functioning (Maryland and California) have yet to solve a crime (according to the Maryland State Police and CADOJ).
These signatures can be altered and 'cleaned up' but not every criminal is all that smart. (They still don't all wear gloves). So...yes it can be very effective. But it isn't the over-exaggerated 'reality' portrayed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

(Yes this is an overdo response. The 100 Hour Board apologizes for the delay in answering and will do better next time. Please don't put the bullet fingerprinting to the test b/c of this!)
Regards,
Mac Taylor

Continue Reading...

Somewhere Over the Rainbow

Q: Dear 100 Hour Gurus:

Through my travels I have encountered several rainbows and frankly, I think I have honestly been at the end of one. In essence, can one really be at the end of a rainbow? does it just end mid air? In addition, can any geographical area have a rainbow?

Sincerely,
Still questioning colors!


A: Dear Color Confused,

Longfellow wrote:

"My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
Or let me die!…"

I, as you, have a secret passion for rainbows, although given its recent transformation into a symbol for alternative lifestyles, I cannot be as free with my love as before - lest I end up in New Hope, New Jersey. (That's just not my bag - baby) But, even though I share this mutual love, I must tell you that once again (like with the penguin-red debacle), you are wrong. You were not at the end of the rainbow.

Legend might put a lot at the end of the rainbow: gold, the letter 'w', heaven for the Greeks, Asgard for the Norse, for Aboriginals in Australia the end is the giant mouth of a ferocious snake, and so on. But there really isn't any way to find out. Although you may feel you've been to the end, it just isn't obtainable.

You see rainbows are optical illusions. When the sun is low enough in the sky, it passes through small raindrops in the air. The white light is refracted through the drop, with red light less so than blue. As it bounces back out of the drop it is separated as a rainbow. You view the rainbow always directly opposite the sun in relation to yourself. All raindrops reflect the sunlight in the same way, but you can only see those that reflect in your direction. The rainbow is also centered around the head of your shadow - the antisolar point. You can get rainbows in other odd situations - like with cirrus clouds, and with sprinklers - but the same general principles apply. And that's the truth!

Of course, I offer two other pieces of info. You can have moonbows - or lunar rainbows.
Additionally, in Canada they have a different philosophy.
Regards,

Roy G. Biv

Continue Reading...

Sand In the Most Uncomfortable...

Q: Oh wise and all-knowing 100-Hour Board,

OK here is one for you to research for me... So we were driving down the shore today and I want to know why as soon as you hit the shore areas.... there is sand everywhere.. even when it is far from the beach/ocean. How does it get there? Is sand actually a type of soil? If it can travel as far as the "outer shore areas" why is it not everywhere? Did this make sense?

Regards,
"I think I'm spending too much time in the sun" Nikki

A: Dear "Down at the Shore"
I've noticed the proliferation of sand in odd places for quite a long time. For example, why do you find sand in bed when it's been months since you've last been? Or even years? And it scratches your legs while you sleep! Well, I did do some research and am ready to dive into this sandstorm for you.

First, the source of sand. Sand is really just granules of rock in small sizes (specifically 1/16mm to 2mm). A little smaller it is called silt, a little larger, gravel. It can be made of a wide variety of rocks, gypsum, quartz, limestone, etc. That's why you get black, white, red and other colored beaches. (My favorite is the black sand beach in Hawaii - although it isn't super safe to swim there - plus very sharp volcanic rocks). In the case of the Shore (i.e the NJ beach, home of salt water taffy, inspiration for Jaws - true story, and very hairy, fat men holding pepper and sausage sandwhiches) the sand is leftovers from glaciers.

A little background. During the Cretaceus period (145 to 65 Million Years Ago) glaciers cut across New Jersey, giving us a wide variety of beautiful features (think of the highlands, gorges, lakes, etc.). At the end of the glaciers (physically) near the shore area of the state, and at the end of the glaciers (they melted) there was a large deposition of sand. Leftovers from sedimentary rock. They call this till - glacial sediment - a wide mix of deposits to include clay, gravel, sand, etc. (Interestingly enough a really sticky form of clay is called gumbo - it's always about food!)

Geologically, in New Jersey, from Freehold south, across to Salem and to the coast is the Outer Coastal Plain. It is the youngest part of NJ - only about 65 to 1.8 million years old (part of the current geological age). And it is sediment - gravel and sand - that goes all the way to the Continental Shelf, some 200 miles off shore. It gets a little more complicated than that, but basically it is part of the landscape - soil. And for that question - soil is a complicated, little understood mixture of liquids, solids and gases. Sand can be a part of soil - along with organics, rocks, etc. In the case of New Jersey Coastal Plain the soil is typically Entisol (basically simple sand, clay, etc.) and Ultisol generally reddish soil that is pretty good but can be exhausted (and has sand in it).

Now this is all well and good - but I will tell you the real truth - not all this geological mumbo-jumbo. Sand comes from the beach - as we all know. And it gets carried back in land by many things - hence you find it everywhere. Wind blows it, animals drag it. But more often than not it is carried in the shoes of little girls, in every crease of the carseats and in human belly buttons.
Oh, and NJ sand is a money maker. It is used in casting metal (think car engines) and is the main ingredient in glass).
Regards,
"I Bet all that info hurts a little more than that sun-burn" 100 Hour Board

Continue Reading...