The University of Waikato - Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato
Faculty of Science and Engineering - Te Mātauranga Pūtaiao me te Pūkaha
Waikato Home Waikato Home > Science & Engineering > Physics Stop
Staff + Student Login

We were away this weekend - in sunny Whakatane. That was a smart move weather-wise. We arrived back home about 2.30pm yesterday afternoon, just as the fog was lifting from Cambridge. An hour later, it was settling down again for the night. A glance at the MetService website shows that, while Whakatane and Rotorua basked in 12 degree maximum temperatures (and somehow Tauranga hit 15 C), Hamilton made it to 7 Celsius.

A consequence of this was that our house was COLD when we came back to it.

Now, those of you who have seen our house will know that it's built to catch the winter sun (pity there wasn't any yesterday) via lots of glass and soak up the warmth with lots of concrete. And it works really well on cold winter days when the sun's out. But on cold winter days when the sun is not out (i.e. Waikato fog) a fundamental design flaw is evident. With no heating on for two days with morning temperatures well below zero, the house got cold. About 7 degrees inside. That was no surprise. The first thing we did was to turn the heat pumps on. An hour later it was still cold. Three hours later it was cold. About six hours later we had the temperature up to 15 degrees. The poor heat pump was blatting out hot air as powerfully as it could, but the house was just not getting hotter quickly at all. 

The reason is that concrete again. Just as its designed to soak up the heat from the sun and re-radiate it slowly, keeping some warmth in the evening, so it takes a long time to warm up. Here's a quick calculation.

We have internal concrete block walls about 20 cm thick. Let's suppose they have cooled to 7 degrees. How long does it take (with warm air on both surfaces) to get that concrete back up to temperature?  It's a question of diffusion of heat. The heat gets to the centre of the concrete through conduction. This process can be described by the diffusion equation. See here for the lovely maths. The key parameter is something called the thermal diffusivity - often called 'D' - it depends on the thermal conductivity, density and heat capacity of the concrete.  For concrete the thermal diffusivity is about 5 x 10-7 m2 s-1.   In a time t, heat will diffuse a distance of approximately the square-root of D t.  In six hours (about 20 000 seconds), this comes to about 0.1 metres - that is 10 cm. After this time we can consider the middle of that concrete block as having warmed up. Approximately speaking, the concrete wall will then no longer be soaking up the heat from the air, and instead, the air can stay warm.

I have to say that this was about our experience last night. By bedtime, the house was tolerably warm again. 

Incidentally, I have also done a quick estimate of the number of kWh of electricity we used last night. Ouch.



| | Comments (0)

You have got to see this...

This movie is a demonstration of laminar flow. My colleague Julia Mullarney used it last week in our Osborne lectures to high-school students to demonstrate what turbulent flow ISN'T. Basically, laminar flow is time-reversal invariant. This implies a few things, but, notably here that if you reverse the processes involved you get back to where you started with. This is the problem that micro-organisms face when they move. Any motion that has time-reversal symmetry (like a swimmer kicking their legs, or a scallop shell opening and closing) will get them nowhere. The solution for the micro-organism is to rotate a flagellum (or two). A rotation breaks time-reversal symmetry, since a clockwise rotation does not look the same as an anticlockwise one. More of that is discussed here. 

In Julia's case, however, she is interested in turbulent flow. Turbulence is characterised by energy loss (hence the fact that you can't get back to where you started) and structure on many length scales. It has been labelled as one of physics' most stubborn problems.

When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first.  - Werner Heisenberg. Maybe. Or Horace Lamb...

She gave a very entertaining talk about her work on turbulence, in amongst the monster mangroves of the Mekong delta in southern Vietnam. The mangroves play an important role in shaping the costal environment, and their effect on turbulence is significant. They have the role (if I understood Julia correctly) of both aiding deposition of sediment (by calming the flow of incoming waves) but also encouraging its loss (by inducing turbulence at small scales leading to scouring of sediment around mangrove plants). Only by measuring the flow on a fine length scale, can these effects be looked at in detail. Really exciting stuff.


| | Comments (0)

Right. Time to come up for air after a hectic month. I can breathe again, at least until the end of tomorrow, when the next pile of assignments land on my desk for marking.

I bought a new car last week. Well, new for me. The previous 22-year-old piece of machinery had finally succumbed to the effects of old age and high mileage. One coolant leak too many and it was off to the scrapyard for recycling. With the new car came the need for transferring my University of Waikato 'Licence to Hunt' out of one vehicle and into the other.

No, this is not a licence to hunt big game, rabbits, students or other campus life. Come to think of it, I don't ever recall seeing any big game on campus, but there are certainly plenty of rabbits and students around. It's a licence to hunt an on-campus staff parking space, a privelege for which I pay a few dollars a week . Yes, since the beginning of the year we've had to pay to park on campus, although it has to be said there has never been any difficultly in finding somewhere to park.

The licence is a credit-card sized piece of plastic, that sits in a holder, rather like what is used for the registration tag on a car. But pulling the licence out of its plastic holder was actually a bit of a tricky task. Having been sitting on a car windscreen over summer, it was no longer flat. I got it out of one holder, with a bit of tugging,but in its bent condition it certainly wouldn't fit in a new holder and stick on the windscreen of the new car.  What do I do with it?

Having mentioned this to a colleague, the answer was very straightforward. Iron it. Basically repeat the process that caused it to distort in the first place, namely undergoing the 'glass transition'. Thermoplastics, when cold, are hard and brittle. They are in a 'glass' state; they have long chain molecules that are twisted together and can't easily move. But heat it sufficiently, and it reaches a transition point (the 'glass transition') where the long molecules are able to twist and move much more easily. As a result the whole material becomes rubbery and distortable. I don't know exactly what material the permit is made from (I'm sure someone here could tell me), but it's one that clearly has its glass transition at a temperature lower than that exhibited inside a car on a hot day.

So, with a low-heat iron, I ironed my parking permit (Yes, I did put a piece of scrap material on top so it didn't get too hot too quickly). And quite suddenly the whole thing went rubbery. I could have folded  it in half, or scrunched it up. I ironed it nice and flat, then just waited for it to cool. Pretty suddenly, in went from soft and flexible to hard and brittle again. Result: a parking permit that was back to its original condition.

If you want to try this at home I suggest doing some research first and picking the right material. Ironing a credit-card might not be a clever idea.

There are some good YouTube videos of this with various materials, for example this one.




| | Comments (0)

Probability crops up in many places in physics, not least quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, where we are only sure of things in an average or 'statistical' sense. Dealing with probabilities can be a headache for many students.

They are also a headache for many in everyday life. There are numerous occasions where we need to estimate the likelihood of something occuring, and we can get it very wrong indeed. What is the probability of encountering a monster traffic jam on the way to Auckland Airport (i.e. just how early should I leave for that flight?).  What are the chances that my visitor will actually turn up on time (or at all?)  However, bookmakers make their living on estimating probabilities, so it's always amusing when they get it wrong. (Plus the fact that I have deep issues with gambling).

So, first, congratulations to Leicester City on winning the English Football Premiership.

At the beginning of the season, so I am led to believe by Radio NZ, one of the major bookmakers in the UK had them as 5000-1 outsiders. That's five THOUSAND to one. Moreover, they thought it more likely, according to the odds that they were offerering,  that in the coming year:

1. Conclusive evidence would be found of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster

2. Barak Obama would declare the moon landings as faked

3. Elvis Presley would be discovered alive

Really? Come on. Yes, Leicester's success was unlikely, but THAT unlikely?  They had a flurry of success right at the end of the 2014-2015 season, to avoid relegation (comfortably in the end), and changed their manager. Hints that things could go well for them the following year. Offering such extremely long odds seems to fly in the face of the evidence that was there. Rank outsiders do occasionally win sporting events, or elections.  It doesn't happen only once every five thousand times.

I remember when I worked in industry in the UK we had an online tool for assessing business opportunities. If we put in a bid to a customer, or a project proposal, or were even having preliminary discussions with a potential customer, we entered the details into a database, including such things as likely size of the contract, and what the probability was of winning it. That would be used to help with our financial planning. However, the reality, as our accountants kept telling us, was that the average person who had discussions with potential customers (for example, myself), was very bad at estimating the probability of success. We tended to severely overestimate the probability. That was evident just from an analysis of what we said were the chances and what actually transpired.

For example, they could pick out the entries where we said there was a 50% chance of securing funding, and look at what fraction were actually funded. It wasn't anywhere near 50%. Given that the organization was full of mathematicians and physicists, this was quite amusing, and it shows how difficult it is to get a real handle on probabilities.

I'm not sure what the accountants did with our estimates, but they probably halved them or more. Which is what I've done with my estimated chance of having my Marsden Proposal get to the second round. I find out later this week.



| | Comments (0)

I didn't actually intend to visit the Synchrotron. I didn't actually know it was right next door (honestly - I don't exaggerate) to the Centre for Biomedical Imaging at Monash University in Melbourne until I arrived there on Monday. Somehow I managed to get myself tagged onto a tour with a group of students.

The synchrotron is a machine for producing broadband high energy X-rays (plus a lot of other lower energy electromagnetic radiation) for a variety of purposes - what they are used for depends on who has set up their experiment at the time. Electrons are accelerated to high energies, and then when they are bent they emit high-intensity broadband radiation in a very narrow beam- very useful stuff for physicists. We saw a bit of the gear needed to do the job - lots of magnets and electromagnetic cavities for accelerating the electrons with alternating electromagnetic fields. What I loved was the method for tuning the cavities. Someone would adjust them by punching tiny dents into the side of the metal (lots of copper here) at the right places - a low technology solution to a high technology problem.

What was I doing next door? I was in Melbourne last week visiting some potential collaborators. This coming week I'll be talking with some more - this time in Perth. I took the opportunity today to travel out to Rottnest Island and see the quokka (what's a quokka?) - a beautiful day trip from the city. But back to work on Tuesday.


| | Comments (0)

Seen on a notice at a Cambridge Cafe:

Waipa District Council. Permit to occupy pavement space. This is to certify that **** has been approved to occupy 15.000000 metres squared of pavement space. 

I might not have got the exact words right, but I certainly counted the number of zeros after the decimal point. 

The cafe will be delighted, I'm sure, to know they can occupy 15.000000 metres squared of space as opposed to 14.999999. That extra square millimetre will make all the difference to their before-tax annual profit. Perhaps they'll be disappointed they hadn't applied for 15.000001 metres squared. 

Presumably Waipa District Council, when they come round to check that this cafe is abiding by the rules of its various permits, will be measuring each linear dimension of the tables and chairs to the nearest millimetre. 


| | Comments (0)

There's been a lack of any activity from me for the last few weeks. This is mostly down to teaching overload at university. About 50% of my year's teaching comes in the first half of our first semester, which leaves me pretty-well no time to do anything else. Writing in a blog is the least of my priorities at the moment, I'm afraid.

That doesn't mean I'm not taking note of physics when it arises. On Monday night I was supervising a test - it was the loudest one I've ever experienced (save the 'test you can talk in'). That was down to 180 students shuffling pieces of paper about in a concrete-walled, concrete floored lecture theatre. With the sound reflected so nicely off the rigid walls (having a very different acoustic impedance from that of air) each turn-of-the page would have been heard several times before its energy finally decayed away. Couple that with a test script that in hindsight was badly formatted and required the students to keep turing to the back to look things up in a table, and there was a real hubbub of paper noise. The sign 'Quiet Please, Examination in Progress' on the door was quiet pointless.

Back some time later...

| | Comments (0)

...No, it isn't something everyone smokes... 

But it is common in machine mechanisms. The universal joint is a neat way of turning rotation in one plane into rotation in another. A common use is on driveshafts where you want the direction of the shaft to bend. There's a neat animation on Wikipedia of how the thing moves. Despite seeing them in action (including in our teaching lab) I'm always amazed that it works. Let's think about it. There are four pins on the joint - two for one shaft, and two for the other. They have to stay in the same geometry (namely at the four corners of a square) as both shafts rotate. That doesn't seem possible. Three points are what defines a plane - put in a fourth and surely it's not, in general, going to sit on that plane, let alone stay at an angle of 90 degrees in the plane from its two neighbours. The problem is 'solved' when you realize that the two shafts do not rotate at exactly the same rates. What I mean by that is that if you rotate the first shaft at constant rotation speed (angular speed) the second does not respond with a constant rotation. At some parts of its cycle it speeds up slightly, and at some parts it slows down. The extent of this speed-up and slow-down depends on the angle through which you bend your drive-shaft. A large angle of bend will cause a considerable fluctuation in rotation rate of the driven shaft as it goes through a cycle.  However, for small angles, this fluctuation is pretty small.

These fluctuations can be important and problematic, since a fluctuating rotation rate causes a fluctuating torque on the equipment. 

Now, here's the really neat bit about the universal joint as far as I'm concerned. I don't care much for mechanical mechanisms (Hmm - maybe my third year mechanical engineering class shouldn't hear that...) but I do like astronomy. The maths governing the fluctuation in rotation rate of the driven driveshaft is exactly the same as the maths determining one of the two contributions to the Equation of Time. This equation is what determines how 'fast' or 'slow' solar time (that is, what a sundial would measure) is compared to clock time.

A day is only 24 hours long on average through the year. Sometimes it is about half a minute shorter, sometimes about half a minute longer. We can see the effects of this at the moment - as we come out of summer (sigh...) the long days are ending. The mornings are now considerably darker (sunrise is much later) than it used to be.  But the evenings are still pretty light. Sunset hasn't shifted a lot. This is because our days have actually been longer than 24 hours for a few weeks. Clock time has gradually got ahead of solar time. (But, fear not, it will reverse itself quickly.) There are two reasons for this effect, which is pretty noticeable around November (light mornings compared to evenings) and February (light evenings compared to mornings). First, there's a contribution due to the earth's orbit around the sun being elliptical, not circular. The earth moves quicker in December/January than it does in June/July. Secondly, there's an effect due to the fact that the plane of rotation of the earth on its axis (and its the earth's rotation that obviously controls clock time) is tilted compared to the plane of orbit of the earth around the sun. The two planes are not the same. The maths for this second contribution is pretty horrendous but it was done long ago and if you are interested you can go and look it up. 

Note that we are talking about two different planes of rotation, slightly tilted with respect to each other. That's exactly the same as for the universal joint. The same mathematics applies to both. Which makes the universal joint, after all, something worth looking at. 





| | Comments (0)

I shudder to think what it must have been like in the path of Cyclone Winston. It is hard to conceive of winds 230 km/h sustained for minutes at a time. I remember vividly what is now known as the Great Storm of 1987 (an extra-tropical cyclone) which pulverised south-east England on 15/16 October 1987. There were (according to Wikipedia - ahem!)  gusts close to 200 km/h recorded in Sussex (where I lived), but there were possibly higher ones than these - the anemometers failed.  I spent the night listening to trees falling one by one around our house. Opposite the house was (and still is) a very tall Wellingtonia - one of the earliest specimens of this tree planted in the UK - and if that had fallen on us there wouldn't have been much house left. It stood firm, thankfully. That is frightening stuff.  But that's probably small fry compared to what Cyclone Winston did. 

One thing that I didn't personally experience in 1987 was the storm surge. (Being about 40 km inland kind of protected us from that.) Storm surges are a major cause of deaths in cyclones. The sea level can rise substantially during a storm - and coupling that with a high tide can lead to widespread and sudden flooding. 

There are lots of ways that a storm can raise water level. Winds can blow water towards the shore, and the Coriolis force acting on moving water can cause a build up. One simple effect is that the low-pressure in the storm simply 'sucks' the water level upwards.

Atmospheric pressure (about 1000 millibars or about 100 kPa) can hold up about ten metres of water. If you had a thin tube, filled it with water, sealed one end,  put the other open end in a bucket of water, and lifted the closed end ten metres into the air, you'd see that you got to the point where the water in the tube couldn't be supported any more. A vacuum would form above this height. See it here! In fact, what you have is a barometer - the height of the water is proportional to the atmospheric pressure. A 1 millibar change in pressure corresponds to about a 10 mm of water. With Cyclone Winston, the pressure dropped to 915 millibar, meaning about an 85 cm increase in the height of the ocean to this effect alone. This may not sound much but the disturbance doesn't remain localized - it will propagate out in a similar way to a tsunami. A fairly small shift in sea level in the ocean can correspond to a much more considerable shift when the wave slows down close to the shore. Throw in the effects of wind and rainfall and so forth, and one can end up with a devastating and sudden increase in sea level.  

At a more gentle level, atmospheric pressure is what holds up the water in a pet water dispenser, like the one we use with our chickens. There would be no point having a dispenser more than 10 metres high (that would water a lot of chooks indeed) - there would be no water supported above this height. 





| | Comments (0)

Yesterday I was part of a very interesting workshop on Science in Society, in Auckland. There was a plethora of good examples of science communication discussed - including forest restoration on the East Coast, biological control of pests in vineyards in Canterbury and improvement of health outcomes for Native Americans in Montana. For me, it was clear that there were some resounding messages coming through about science communicaton. 

1. It needs to be driven by the community. Here, community could mean a town or village, a marae, an industry group, a school - any group of people with an interest in achieving something. The participation of the scientist is as a partner, often as a junior partner. In other words, the community takes the lead. The scientist(s) doesn't go out and say "Right, now I am going to do some science communication." If she does, no-one will listen. Instead, she needs to be listening and responsive to the (scientific) needs of others. 

2. Communication is about relationships. Richard  Faull gave a very humbling talk about his work on Huntington's Disease, done in partnership with several Maori families across the country for whom Huntington's is tragically real.  It is a true partnership. To achieve what he has done has taken decades of building relationships. Listening to people's stories, spending weeks on Maraes, being available Christmas Day for someone to offload their fears for the future.  

3. There is a difference between outputs and outcomes: It is easy(ish) to write journal articles about science communication projects. That's an output. An outcome is a lasting impact for the people concerned:

Communication isn't complete until it is put into practice for the people for whom it makes an impact  - Polly Atatoa-Carr

Now here's the problem for the scientist (i.e., me). We are all tasked to be science communicators. (Yes, we are - if you're a member of a professional organization you'll probably find it's part of your responsibilities as a member - and, if nothing else, it is your duty as a professional to talk about your profession.) But it isn't something we can do (as in "Right, I need to do some science communication in the next few months - what shall I do?") Soana Pamaka, of Tamaki College in Auckland, summed it up "Schools are sick and tired of being 'done to'." Instead, we need to build relationships with community groups and be open to respond to opportunities that arise. Almost certainly, those opportunities will not be in our specialist areas. I mean, how many community groups have an interest in neural field models? But if we have good relationships, then groups will come to us because they know us. And we have to respond to that. For example, at Tamaki College, which has a fantastic science programme, the science communication is driven by the school, which means the children, with guidance from teachers. The scientists work in partnership with them. 

Better science communication needs better relationships with communities, and be community-driven. The scientists need to be open to respond to those opportunities. How ironic then, for a workshop on 'Science in Society' nearly all participants were scientists or educators.



| | Comments (0)