I Thought I Had An Idea

Q: dear 100 board
i apologize for my absence, but i need an answer and i know of only one place to get the truth..... ok board a light bulb burns out, are we still using energy if the light switch is on even though our bulb has seen its last?... i appreciate your time oh wise 100!!

Pat

A: Oh Pat. Your absence is unexcused. The 100 Hour Board is aware of your departure and responsible for your light bulbs burning out.
The answer is yes and no. Or rather my favorite answer ever...it depends! Depends on what?
It depends on what kind of light bulb you have.

Light Bulb 101:

Light bulb technology is pretty intricate, cool and yet simple at the same time. Makes you respect Mr. Edison more.

Incandescent bulbs (old technology) work by sending a electrical current through a resistor, in this case thin tungsten coil filaments, that resist the flow of electricity and convert it into heat and some light. Only about 10% is visible which is why they are so inefficient. Normally the tungsten would catch on fire, so they fill the light bulb with argon or nitrogen. Over time the tungsten atoms fly off because the filament gets really hot - 4000 degrees! Like evaporation off water. The argon helps keep this from happening.

But over time, because of the tungsten leaving, and the constant on and off, rapid heating and cooling, the filament gets brittle and breaks. And your bulb burns out. Now an incandescent bulb can also fail because of vibration (filament breaks loose), glass breaking (argon leaves and filament catches fire), or the connection to the bulb and fixture is bad (that solder piece is deformed or the copper spring contact bends in - stemming from over tightening bulbs).

No matter which way it burns out, with incandescent bulbs, no electricity is flowing. The electrical circuit is broken. Like cutting your cord to the lamp. Which is why they are safe to leave in - no electric shocks from probing fingers.

BURNED OUT INCANDESCENT BULB = NO POWER

But fluorescent bulbs use a different principle to operate. A tube of argon coated in phosphor powder, is also filled with a little mercury. Electrodes at either end flow electrons through the plasma in the on tube and this causes gaseous mercury to release electrons and light. Although it releases ultraviolet light. The phosphor powder absorbs the UV and releases white light (or other colors depending on the powder). (I recommend looking at this page at How Stuff Works.)

These lights require a starting mechanism - usually what they call a ballast - that stores and releases energy at start-up. "Burning out" for fluorescent bulbs are less defined if they are not catastrophic (glass breaking) but can include issues with the electrodes, ballasts and leaks.

When fluorescent bulbs burn out it is possible to have electricity flowing through the tube but not igniting the mercury electron release. Also you can be sending electricity to the ballast all the time the switch is on. It could be a slow leak or even more to the ballast.

BURNED OUT FLUORESCENT BULB = SOME POWER

So not only do you need to worry about mercury spills and the EPA with a broken flourescent bulb, you need to worry about stray current! Oh my!
Hope that gives you some answers - or ideas to swallow for that matter:

100 HB
(Top photo courtesy of Josh Madison)

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...

Electircal Potential Differences...its all Voltage to Me

Dear 100 (Day?) Board:

Q: Why does the United States use 110 voltage and Europe 220? And why the different plug system for them?

Sincerely,

220V A,L Plug

A: Dear Anti-Adapter,

In short, to answer your question laziness and unilateralism has caused the issues regarding inconsistent voltage, Hz and plugs not to mention that pesky metric system. To help you with the confusion visit the World-wide Electricity guide.

We have addressed these questions earlier with our brilliant article, Dirty Power Done Cheap. Your lack to adapt and understand previous answers is unfortunate. But because you are an ex-Pat it is almost a given that you will never fully adapt. For more detailed answers, well let us get started:

How values were selected
The type of electricity delivered to homes and businesses was first direct current (DC) but then changed to AC electricity. The standard voltage level started at 110V, went to 240V, back to 110V, and then to 220V. Voltage is just a fancy way to say, electrical potential differences. It is the force of electricity. The frequency started at 60Hz and then went to 50Hz in most areas simply because these frequencies were most efficient and optimal although it is argued 60Hz is better, faster and stronger... like the US.

Tesla starts AC
Early in the history of electricity, Thomas Edison's General Electric Company was distributing DC electricity at 110 volts in the United States and kicking every one's butt. Then Nikola Tesla devised a system of three-phase AC electricity at 240 volts. Three-phase meant that three alternating currents slightly out of phase were combined in order to even out the great variations in voltage occurring in AC electricity. He had calculated that 60 cycles per second or 60Hz was the most effective frequency. Tesla later compromised to reduce the voltage to 110 volts for safety reasons.

Europe goes to 50Hz
With the backing of the Westinghouse Company, Tesla's AC system became the standard in the United States. Meanwhile, the German company AEG started generating electricity and caught the fascist bug and became a virtual monopoly in Europe. They decided to use 50Hz instead of 60Hz to better fit their metric standards, but they kept the voltage at 110V.

Unfortunately, 50Hz AC has greater losses and is not as efficient as 60HZ. Due to the slower speed 50Hz electrical generators are 20% less effective than 60Hz generators. Electrical transmission at 50Hz is about 10-15% less efficient. 50Hz transformers require larger windings and 50Hz electric motors are less efficient than those meant to run at 60Hz. They are more costly to make to handle the electrical losses and the extra heat generated at the lower frequency. Those stupid fascists.

Europe goes to 220V
Europe stayed at 110V AC until the 1950s, just after World War II. They then switched over to 220V for better efficiency in electrical transmission. Great Britain not only switched to 220V, but they also changed from 60Hz to 50Hz to follow the European lead. Since many people did not yet have electrical appliances in Europe after the war, the change-over was not that expensive for them.

U.S. stays at 110V, 60Hz
The United States also considered converting to 220V for home use but felt it would be too costly, due to all the 110V electrical appliances people had. A compromise was made in the U.S. in that 220V would come into the house where it would be split to 110V to power most appliances. Certain household appliances such as the electric stove and electric clothes dryer would be powered at 220V.

Some countries can't decide on a standard.


This lack of standardization has caused multiple plugs and appliance prongs. I mean come on what do we even have a UN for?

But just think it could be worse. Just look at these countries:

Brazil
In Brazil, most states use between 110V and 127V AC electricity. But many hotels use 220V. In the capital Brasilia and in the northeast of the country, they mainly use 220-240V.

Japan
In Japan, they use the same voltage everywhere, but the frequency differs from region to region. Eastern Japan, which includes Tokyo, uses 50Hz. In western Japan, which includes Osaka and Kyoto, they use 60 Hz.

The reason for this is that after World War II, Britain was in charge of helping reconstruct Japan's electrical system in the eastern part of the country and the United States set up the electricity in the western part of Japan. Since Great Britain (United Kingdom) had been using 60Hz before the war and had just switched over to the European 240V 50Hz, it is strange that they set up Japan at 100V and 50Hz, especially when the U.S. was using 60Hz.

Having different voltages and frequencies within the country not only must be confusing for the people but also can result in extra costs for appliances and adapters. That MacArthur missed this is a mystery. Maybe he was preoccupied with his ever present personality.

Summary
The voltage and frequency of AC electricity varies from country to country throughout the world- it ain't changing anytime soon. No US or foreign president has had it on their platform for election/re-election. Most use 220V and 50Hz. About 20% of the countries use 110V and/or 60Hz to power their homes. 220V and 60Hz are the most efficient values, but only a few countries use that combination. The United States uses 110V and 60Hz AC electricity.

Continue Reading...

Turn Me Off or On?...It All Depends on How Long

Q: Is it better to leave fluorescent bulbs on continually or turn them on and off as needed? Is there a time when it is more efficient to leave them off?

Sincerely,

In the Dark

A: Dear Dark Side:

Your question of efficiency is a good one. I would qualify the question by asking, is it better to leave fluorescent bulbs on continually or turn them on and off as needed as compared to what? If you are comparing a fluorescent bulb to an incandescent bulb than the answer would be yes in either situation. It would be more efficient to have fluorescent bulbs period.

So what is the difference between the two? A incandescent light bulb uses a thin tungsten filament that electricity runs through. Since the filament is thin it offers resistance to the electricity. This resistance turns electrical energy into heat. The heat turns the filament white hot which emits light. It also emits heat. This is highly inefficient. In fact only 10-15% of electricity that incandescent lights consume results in actual visible light.

A fluorescent bulb utilizes electrodes at both ends of a fluorescent tube. A gas mixture of argon and mercury vapor is pumped into the tube. When the light is switched on a stream of electrons flow from one electrode to the other passing through the mixed gas. The electrons bump into the mercury atoms and activate them. As the frenzied mercury atom slows its activity it emits off ultraviolet photons. The photons collide with phosphor that coats the inside fluorescent tube. This collision creates visible light. This process is 4-6 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs and produces less heat.

If your question is in comparison with the fluorescent bulb itself the question still needs to be qualified. How long will you be leaving a room? This is what makes all the difference. The process to emit light from a fluorescent bulb does take more energy upon the switch of a light as compared to leaving the light on. So wouldn't it be more efficient to just leave it on? Just like everything else in life the efficiencies of a fluorescent bulb have a break even point. So yes, there are times when it is more efficient to leave a fluorescent bulb but when doesn't seem to be agreed upon. Provided are recommendations as to when to turn the bulb off.

• US Department of Energy: If you leave the room for more than 15 minutes
• Consumer Energy Center: When leaving the room for more than 3-5 minutes
• Myth Busters: When leaving the room for more than 23.3 seconds
• Lighting Design Lab: When leaving a room for more than 15-20 minutes

But consider this:
According to the Arogonne National Laboratory, the energy needed to start a fluorescent lamp is not significantly higher than the energy needed to operate it. Even if we assume that a fluorescent lamp uses twice the normal amount of power during the starting phase, this phase lasts for only about 1 or 2 seconds. So, the crossover time to save energy would be less than 2 seconds.

And finally Scientific American recommends to always turn them off.

What you are really failing to ask yourself is the most important question regarding fluorescent bulbs. That question is, How does one make an authentic Star Wars light saber using fluorescent bulbs? Well, you can't unless you want to kill yourself or end up like those brits who put gasoline in fluorescent lights. You can try something a bit Safer however.

Continue Reading...

Can We All Just Get Along?

Q: Perhaps the next question should be "Can we ALL get along?"

Regards,

Snarky 80

A: Dear "Accident"

In this wonderful time of year, the Holiday cheer, the message of Christmas and the desire to be warm to each other despite the chill outside, fills our hearts with depression. We want to share our love for one another, come together and be a little kinder. Some of us, hot chocolate kissing our lips, glitter spread across our kiesters, and fit into sweats to accommodate our expanding Holiday waist lines, take up the call to arms of Rodney King and ask if "can we all get along?"

And then that SUV cuts you off for the last parking space at the mall.

No.

We cannot all get along.

And there are three profound scientific reasons we cannot.

1. Phermones: Yes, those pesky little chemical triggers we release that inspire a natural response in other people. And I'm not talking about post-eggnog exhaust. There are the territorial markers that tell us to keep away or else. Which is why the 100 Hr Board has taken up marking the outside of our cars when we park in parking lots. All it takes is a couple of sodas. Just mind the frost. There are also epideictic pheramones that let other women know, "uh-uh you best not be touching my man and home. This is my crib girlfriend." (I think the chemical even does a little head shake too, while the extended molecular arm waves its chemical finger - so to speak). Of course there are sexual pheramones that start fights, scuffles, couch-sleeping and even inter-galactic war. It isn't the man's fault his head turns to look at a cute younger woman honey - chemistry made me do it. Releaser pheramones may even attract mates up to 2 miles away. Which explains the need for me to visit Quick Chek and eat a sausage-egg-cheese-hotsauce-breakfast sandwhich I am so attracted to. So, all those not-getting-along sessions can be attributed to pesky chemical markers. So next time you get someone angry or can't pick up a date - check your pheramones.


2. Pedigree Colapse: Why is it you don't have billions of ancestors, when the math suggests you should? Given the increase in ancestors when you start counting grandparents, and the lot of greats before them, you would think you had lots of fore-fathers. Something like 3 million around the black plague time. The thing is, as you move back you start getting common ancestors. For example, statistically 70% of those 3 million ancestors are really some of the same people. Your family tree actually looks more like a diamond. In short. You are inbred. We all are. And we are all related. Think of it as a giant family Thanksgiving dinner. No one can expect to make it to dessert before Uncle Buck starts a thermonuclear war over the last drumstick. Or Cousin Alice starts suicide bombing your sister about past bad-boyfriends. That pesky DNA (common DNA) will keep us from getting along. It's fate. Or rather genes.


3. Law and Order Reruns: Is it really a coincidence that there is a direct correlation between the number of Law and Order shows currently on TV (or in reruns) and the population growth? Or proportional with the increase in violence in the latter part and early part of the last 2 Centuries. Coincidence? Hardly. Current scientific study suggests that every time Robert Gorn of Criminal Intent makes a snarky comment, three cities in the world disappear off the face of the earth. If he tilts his head to the side, then you can also expect an earthquake in the region above a 7.0 on the Rhicter scale. It is also not widely known but the very relationship between Israel and the Arab Middle East hinges on the relationship between Elliot Staler and his on-again-off-again wife. Only until recently with the presidential campaign of red Thompson did people realize the profound effect on politics from the show. Elections are lost or won based on whether the jury at the end of an episode acquits. In fact, there is a persistent rumor in the scientific community that suggests that if the show ends without finding the killer (whether they are convicted or not), then there will be an invasion somewhere. And I think that tides are affected by Sam Waterston's tie choice. So you may not like the all day line-up of NY crime. But beware. Some think if you cancel it, a large black hole will open up in the earth's core. Of course some people think this is all hog wash and attribute all the same to CSI. There is something to be said about Horatio Cae's sun glasses and global warming.

So - to answer your question. No we cannot just get along. With things like floating chemical lures that AKE me look at her butt out there, unending L&O reruns that drive a man insane and cause mass murder, or the fact that I'm related to boss in some distant way will force us to always fight and argue.

There is one bright spot though. One cure out there. It comes from a much maligned, holiday film staring a recently displaced man raised by elves who walked throught the 7 layers of the candy cane forest and through the Lincoln Tunnel. Yes, Elf. It is known as the Code of the Elvs:
1. Treat Every Day Like Christmas.

2. There's Room For Everyone on the ice List.

3. The Best Way to Spread Christmas Ceer is Singing Loud for All to Hear.

There is hope after all. Thanks Budddy!

100 HRB

Continue Reading...

iTunes, uTunes We All Tunes for iPods

Q: Dear 100HRB

How does one get their own podcast on iTunes?

Sincerely,
Pod Dweller

A: Dear Media Prima Donna:

Wait, your asking questions now? Well as the 1/2 of 100 HRB has already made clear readers (and contributors) should, "answer their own D$#@ quesiton(s)". But this 1/2 (who happens to be pulling the load) is far kinder, gentler, more handsome and manly. A true man doesn't curse (hopefully this will be catalyst enough to get the other 1/2 to post on his own blog).


But I digress. First let us define what is a podcast. Unless you have been living in a cave for the past five years you will know that a podcast is a video or audio series that is downloadable from iTunes and plays on either your MP3 device or computer. You can subscribe to podcasts so that new episodes are automatically downloaded on your iTunes player. Some are free and some have a fee associated with them. Podcasts do not play under shuffles. They are treated as separate than music files. Considering that Apple sold 1.2 billion iPods this year alone, distribution through iTunes seems the way to go. But it all depends on what you want to do.

So you think that you have some wonderful content to provide for iTunes Podcasters? The first thing you need to do is create recordings. As large as Apple company is they do not support the creation of podcasts from content owners. A simple and free download for audio recording software is Audacity. If you are creating a video podcast you may want to look into Quicktime 7 Pro.

Once you have created your recording you will need to host the file on a web-server with an RSS feed. If your podcast is apt to be wonderful you had better have a lot of money. Supporting many downloads to your Podcast requires a lot of server space. Server space costs a lot of money. WBEZ Chicago Public Radio pays about $104,000 per year just to pay for server space which enables millions of users to download the free This American Life podcast. I can think of many good podcasts (Fair Game) that went under simply because of lack of funding.

Finally, you need to submit your RSS web address to the iTunes Store. Apple would like to make this sound very easy but in actuality this submission is more of an application. To become a content provider you must complete the iTunes Online Application. So fill out the application and wait for a couple of years until some poor intern actually fields your request. Once you are a signed content provider you can set the price of your Podcast. Just beware- since iTunes is a behemoth distributor their share of sales is 30 cents for every dollar spent. Even Hollywood labor unions have fought with iTunes for a greater royalty when actors, directors and writers works are downloaded from iTunes...the union lost. iTunes lives and breathes by one-third of the buyers who account for 80 percent of revenues, according to Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research. So it isn't as though you can charge a lot otherwise demand will go down.

If your podcast is picking up speed faster than you can support server space you may want to outsource your server. In addition, you may want to procure the services of Podcast marketing specialists like Podtrac or comScore.

iTunes reports having over 100,000 requests for content to be distributed by them each week. I think what you will find is that getting your stuff out there is easy. Distributing it in such a way that it rises above the billions of other content is the difficult part (just ask 100HRB). Marketplace International, another great podcast, did a study and found that everything on iTunes has a market. Meaning, every piece of content distributed by iTunes has been downloaded or purchased by someone. So at least you know you will have one person interested in your podcast.

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...