What's new here?

There was a time I used to brag that I could get a Van De Graaff generator running in a rainstorm. This was a bit of hyperbole, of course but I do have to say that I got pretty good at operating a Van De Graaff generator (VDGG from hereout) when I worked for a science museum. However, my experience was not typical for Van De Graaff users – more often that not, most VDGG’s are rolled to out to be used for one day in the Physics class. They are operated in 2-4 classes during that day and then rolled back into storage. My high school physics teacher, not the most comic of science teachers, consdiered the use of the VDGG and raising up a student’s hair to be ‘obligatory’ for the class.

This limited usage, however, may mean that many teachers don’t really get an idea of what can go wrong with their machinery. Especially when the VDGG is being used by a middle school or elementary school teacher who may not have the experience needed to run the VDGG proeprly.

The following is a list of things that can go wrong, how to diagnose them, and how to fix them. It is by no means comprehesive but should get you the opportunity to operate your VDGG successfully.

734large

Read the rest of this entry »

In the course of science education every student should get the chance to see a Van De Graaff Generatoror Tesla Coil in action. These electrical devices are a fun way to demonstrate properties of electricity. At Spectrum Scientifics we have recently added several new such devices to our offerings. So let’s talk about the Van De Graaffs first!

Van De Graaff Generators: Often referred to as a ‘static generator’ or ‘that thing that makes your hair stand up’ the Van de Graaff emplyes a belt that carries a positive charge to the ball at the top of the generator. This ball gives the generator its classic shape:

734large

Read the rest of this entry »

For a long, long time it seemed like the parts of our solar system were pretty well fixed and decided. Since the discovery of Pluto not much was changed. Sure, we discovered more moons around Saturn and Juptier when various probes flew around them, and discovered less prominent rings around gas giants not named Saturn, but for the most part things did not change. That is, until we started discovering a bunch of trans-Neptune objects and a lot of conventions went out the window: Pluto was demoted to Dwarf Planet status and despite people holding popularity contests to re-instate it as a planet it has remained a Dwarf Planet

But this sort of thing is actually nothing new. In fact the history of Solar System astronomy from Galileo to the present day is riddled with odd controversies like naming conventions, egoism, nationalism, lost chances, new classifications & credit-stealing  that have dogged the history of local astronomy. Here are just 10 incidents or controversies to make realise that the reclassification of Pluto wasn’t anything new.

10) Nationalism rears its ugly head: Uranus was discovered in 1781 and its discoverer, Herschel, wanted to name it after King George III. So he

"Named after a mortal King? How gauche!"

“Named after a mortal King? How gauche!”

termed it ‘The Georgian Planet’. English sky almanacs listed it this way for decades, but needless to say it was not a popular convention outside of England. Other suggestion made were to name it after Herschel, or call it Neptune(!). The final decision was not made until 1850 to name the planet Uranus.

9) Egoism rears its ugly head: Neptune, the furthest planet from our Sun (now that Pluto is a Dwarf Planet), was discovered by astronomer La Verrier in 1846 (he did not actually first observe it, he did the

"At least you were named after a King!"

“At least you were named after a King!”

calculations as to where it could be found). Once discovered, La Verrier wanted to name the planet after himself. To support this naming convention, France released almanacs that listed Neptune as La Verrier and Uranus as Herschel. This did not placate England (who felt that their astronomer, Adams, deserved credit – more on that later) much less the rest of the astronomy world. The name Neptune was suggested, and Laverrier as a planet name lasted only a short time (Georgian Planet, however, lingered).

8) I’m a planet! No, I’m not! Pluto’s demotion is not a new thing. The asteroid Ceres was discovered

"I feel your pain, Pluto".

“I feel your pain, Pluto”.

in 1801 and was quickly classified as a planet. But less than a year later more asteroids were discovered and classifying them all as planets was problematic. It took a while for the convention ‘asteroid’ to be accepted and Ceres was listed as a planet for decades. Now with the new classification of Dwarf Planet, Ceres has been promoted from an asteroid to a Dwarf planet as it fits all the criteria given for that designation.

7) Almost got it! Galileo almost discovered Neptune. In his notes he observed the distant planet while observing Jupiter. The two planets were very close while he was observing. However, Neptune was undergoing its retrograde

"I wonder if...nah.."

“I wonder if…nah..”

motion (where the planets go backwards in the night sky because of the motion of the earth around the sun) and appeared motionless. Galileo considered it to be a fixed star and ignored it. His telescope was not good enough to show details that might indicate it was not a star. Centuries later, an examination of his notes and diagrams was done because someone realized that when Galileo was observing Jupiter when it was in Conjunction with Neptune. Sure enough, it turned out that Galileo was the first human to view the distant planet due to some pure luck, but he couldn’t determine what it actually was.

6) Credit where credit isn’t due: La Verrier wasn’t the only astronomer to lay claim to discovering Neptune. English astronomer Adams also claimed that his calculations led to its discovery. This of course

"Curse You Dennis Rawlins!"

“Curse You Dennis Rawlins!”

caused butting of heads between English and French nationalist astronomers. Finally it was agreed that they would share credit as co-discoverers. However, over a hundred years later, serial credit denier Dennis Rawlins claimed that Adams did not deserve credit for co-discovery as his calculations were way off and almost more harmful than useful (The actual poisition of Neptune was 1 degree from where LaVerrier claimed and 12 degrees from where Adams claimed). It turns out that Rawlins was correct in this case. International astronomers examined the evidence and found Adams should not deserve credit for the discovery. LaVerrier is now considered Neptunes sole discovered. This decision was not made until the late 1990’s.

5) “But, we’re not of Greco-Roman Origin!” The planets are named after Roman gods, which where stolen wholesale from the Greek gods. But Greco-Roman culture did not permeate the entire word. What about Asia? Africa? Native Americans? Indians? Arabs? Well, on the bright planets all of these cultures have their own names. But when it came to the outer planets they were surprisingly clever at adhering to the naming convention. Most cultures, for example, name Neptune after their own historical sea-gods. If they didn’t have a sea-god they would name them after sea monsters. Uranus was a bit trickier as it was a sky god and many cultures do not have such a equivelant diety, so names like ‘Sky King Star’ or ‘Sky God Star’ become the convention.

4) Vulcan, the non-planet (No, we are not talking about Star Trek): When an odd pattern in Mercury’s orbit was discovered in 1859, Newtonian physics could not explain the problem. A solution was suggested that another planet between Mercury and the sun existed that was exuding gravitational force on Mercury. Did we mention this was suggested by LaVerrier, the Neptune discoverer? He suggested this planet be named

"Just get used to me. "

Just get used to me.

Vulcan and requested astronomers search for it. Soon after this was proposed many folks started claming to see this theoretical planet either transiting the sun or with direct observation. Most of these observations were unfounded or unreliable, but one done by astronomer Lescarbault was enough to satisfy Laverrier and he announced its discovery in 1860. Many astronomers were skeptical, and there were many false alarms with sunspots being mistaken for Vulcan. But the problem of Mercury’s orbit remained. Laverrier died and the search for Vulcan waned. In 1915 Einstein solved the problem as being an effect of the strong gravitational effect of the sun having a relativistic effect on Mercury that was much diminished on further planets.

3) Canals on Mars: In the later 19th century, several astronomers reporting seeing ‘channels’ or ‘canals’ on the surface of Mars. Some of them were even mapped. It was even suggested that these channels were artificially Lowell_Mars_channelsdug canals that showed intelligent life on the red planet. As telescope optics improved it was noted that reports of canals dropped off. It turns out that seeing canals on Mars was actually an optical illusion that was an artifact of lower-grade optics. A few adherents stuck with these old canal reports until Mariner 4 mapped the martian surface and showed no such features.

2) Planet X: LaVerrier (again!) noticed some oddness in the orbit of Uranus in the 19th century, this was confirmed by several other observations. It was proposed that a large planet, designated ‘Planet X’ existed past Neptune that was causing this

"I'm not Planet X, but I have a heart!"

I’m not Planet X, but I have a heart!

orbital issue. When Pluto was discovered it was hoped that it was the answer, but Pluto turned out to be too small. Several other searches for Planet X were made but turned up nothing. Some crazies got a hold of the idea and imagined it was doing ludicrous things like hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Eventually the Planet X hypothesis was abandoned when space probe data revealed the error in Uranus’ orbit was caused by a overestimation of the mass of the planet.

1) Phaeton & Titus-Bode Law: You doubtless know of Newton’s Laws of Gravitation, and have probably heard of Kepler’s laws of Planetary Motion. But have you ever heard of of the Titus Bode-Law? (someties just called

"Everything is fine so fa....awwww"

“Everything is fine so fa….awwww”

Bode’s Law). This was a Law that stated that each planet orbiting the sun will be approximately twice the distance from the previous planet. So Venus will be twice the orbit of Mercury, Earth twice the orbit of Venus, etc. This Law got a boost when it was used to find Ceres, which filled the gap between Mars and Jupiter. Since Ceres was not an impressive planet, some proposed it was actually part of a broken or exploded planet they dubbed Phaeton (and idea still suggested by pseudo-scientists today). The discovery of more asteroids lent hope to this idea, but the total mass of the asteroids later found was not enough to make a ‘real’ planet. Bode’s Law got a boost with having an approximate location of Uranus, but flopped badly when used for predicting Neptune’s location.  The Law is now obviously discredited.

www.spectrum-scientifics.com

 

 

We have added a new line of models at Spectrum Scientifics: Mastercraft Models. These models are painstakingly crafted from Phillipine Mohagany and hand-painted with exact detailing. Mastercraft primarily builds commercial and warfare aircraft models, but for now we are carrying their line of Space Exploration models.

These means Space Shuttle models!

6366

Read the rest of this entry »

Every now and then we get someone asking the question ‘Why can’t a computerized telescope do ‘x’?’ Usually ‘x’ is ‘find things in the night sky without me having to work at it’.

3111

The answer, as is often the case, is complex.

When computerized telescopes first started being mass marketed (many computer systems existed as add-ons or on high-end telescopes and as early as the 80’s) they general impression given by their marketing was that they did everything for you. No aligning the finder, no two star alignment system. Just toss the telescope onto the grass lawn and start watching. This was pretty much a lie, and many folks soured on telescopes as a result. The marketing tried to be a bit more clear as other companies added different computer options, but what most folks wanted auto-alignment and tracking. So what went wrong?

  • 1) What people are comparing it with is not exactly accurate

Many folks are stumped by how they can have a planetarium program on their smartphone (or tablet) that gives them googleskymapscreena good idea of what they are looking at in the night sky. What they don’t realize is how innacurate those programs are. They give you a general idea what is up there, sure, but the next time you use it look at just how far off it actually is. The programs can be as much as an hour off, and when you telescope is cranked up to 120x and is looking at 0.05 degrees of the night sky a miss is as good as a mile. Your smartphone does an approximation based your location, the time, and how the tilt sensors are reading. But those sensors aren’t perfect  and the GPS positioning can go awry very easily. Some advanced astronomer  may use planetarium programs by having Pads or phones attached to their telescope, but these are used as more of an adjusting, high detailed star map than as a direct guard

  • 2) The Telescope Manufacturers aren’t exactly rolling in loads of research cash

GPS companies, smartphone manufacturers, Pad manufacturers all have one thing in common: They aren’t small companies. Apple is a mutli-billion dollar company, Google (who developed the droid system) isn’t exactly poor, Samsung, LG, etc. Even when these companies are having hard times they aren’t exactly small. And they spend tons of money trying to stay on top.

Telescope comapnies, by comparison, are on the smaller side. A telescope company that has more than 100 employees is probably a bit bloated. Development and engineering crews are probably in the single digits, with some outside contractors being hired as needed. So this means telescope manufacturers aren’t going to have bleeding edge tech to work on and with. Even when they do get a good idea, it can take a long time to develop & bring to the market.  And it will probably use up a large amount of the research budget. An example would be Celestron’s SkyProdigy series, which while it would have been much more expensive to develop 10 years ago was still probably not an easy developement cycle. And this bleeding edge tech does not ensure success. The SkyProdigy is fairly expensive (smaller models were dropped some time ago), and may not work as well as claimed.

The thing is, almost all of us carry some kind of cell phone, if not a smartphone so the market is huge (even then some phone makers have embarrassing failures). But with telescopes the market is limited, there is no ability to take loss leads on the telescopes becuase the customer will subscribe to an astronomy plan. If a product comes on the market it needs to earn its way in sales and margins.

  • 3) That said, there is some seriously backwards technology on telescopes

Pretty much all computer guided or controlled telescopes include some sort of hand-controller. This usually connects with an ethernet cable to the telescope itself. No problem, ethernet cable is still well in use, even in an age of everything being wireless. But suppose you want to RS232run the telescope from your laptop using a planetarium program like Starry Night or something? You’d need a cable to run that, sure, but what kind? You’d probably think some kind of USB cable, and probably one of the bigger sizes like USB.

Nope.  Odds are you have to connect to your laptop using a RS232 cable. That’s right, old pin and socket tech from the 90’s. These are connection systems that started to go out of style in computer design with the introduction of the first iMac and yet even some of the most modern of telescopes has this connector. Keep in mind that laptops got rid of this connector as soon as they could (pin connections are a big space waster).

Even on less computer gadget features, inconveniences can rule the day. Most reflector telescopes designed after 1999 usually have easy-to-handle knobs on the back of the optical tube for aiding in collimating the telescope’s mirror.

2016-06-14 14.15.49

These knobs are convenient, have a nice grip, and are much easier to turn. But here is the back of a computerized telescope that, while modern in design, uses an off-the-shelf tube that has an older screw-based collimation system.

2016-06-14 14.16.10

Le sigh.

www.spectrum-scientifics.com

 

Teaching science can be hard, and can be made even harder with limited budgets that so many schools have to deal with. This may be an ongoing segment where we explain how simple, inexpensive items can be used to help teach basic concepts.

So say hello to the Mylar Emergency Blanket:

1640e

The Mylar Emergency Blanket comes folded up but unfolds into a shiny, 52″ x 84″ blanket:

Read the rest of this entry »

Erupting volcanos are a staple of many science fairs and school demonstrations. Plus they can be fun to do at home as well. But making the volcano canbe a bit frustrating. Either your make your own volcano with lots of Plaster-of-Paris and the mess caused by it, or a you buy a kit where you make a volcano with Plaster-of-Paris around a framework, or you have a pre-mold that ‘erupts’ using a squeeze bulb rather than a more interesting chemical reaction of vinegar & baking soda.

To help resolve this, the folks ar the Plasteel Corporation developed the Smoothfoam Mega Volcano:

6346c

Read the rest of this entry »