Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Election Day! Just voted!

It has been so long since I've written a formal blog that I no longer know what to write about.  The past weeks have blended together in one flurry of work and fun and it's hard to separate all the noteworthy instances from one another.  Well, without further ado, lets journey through the random bits of my life as I remember them:
First we can start with what is orderly and planned, dissolving into more disorderly and random material; a motif taken from the universe.  A week ago when I thought I would have time to post I wrote down in my notebook a couple notes on what I could talk about.  This was during my ChemE lecture that I jotted these notes down because one of the points was taken directly from what we had just learned in the class.  The list goes as such:

Movie night
Bartimaeus
Euphrates River
Hydrogen Economy
Rain
Base
Felt like Bamf

Some of the aforementioned points may be easy to figure out, others less obvious.  You've already heard about Curtis and my movie night.  I guess the only thing to be said here is something unrelated except for the fact that it deals with Curtis.  And by deals with Curtis I mean it doesn't deal with him but he did say something that leads to what I'm trying to talk about in this very roundabout manner.  First, I think I'm going to shoot for a single next year.  Living in a triple is fun and all, but I think I miss my privacy.

Aaron had already expressed his interest in moving out of the house next year because he experiences the common occurrence in finding out that living with someone is much different than seeing people every so often. Luckily I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean his roommates, but rather some of the other people in our house.  I can sympathize with his sentiment, however I don't think I'll move out under the same basis.  Bringing it back to how we are connecting this loop, Curtis mentioned that next year he would want to live with Paul (I think only Rich has met Paul, but regardless just think of someone who's really cool and you'll have Paul) which means that I was forced to think of options which led me to realize that I would probably want a single.

In addition (Sub-function in the loop.  I hope Rich got that because he is the only one I expect to get a CS joke) Paul and I are both running for treasurer (nominations are tonight, Monday night, as I'm writing this, with elections the following Monday) which will further influence room pick because the Treasurer gets third room pick below the Pres and VP.  This means that not only will Paul steal my roommate from me, he may also steal my chance of getting a single.  Needless to say, if Paul wasn't as awesome as he was I would be quite perturbed.

Moving on with my list, a pair of you know I'm reading (read read) the fourth book in the Bartimaeus trilogy.  It was a fun read, but far inferior to the other three books. I can lend it to you if you want to read it over Thanksgiving (you can keep it through the semester) because it's still enjoyable to read.  That humour... so good.  I've started spelling stuff with the -our instead of -or.  I like it better.  I use it most often with vapour.  Chemistry, you know how it is.  Or you don't unless you're Rich.  Rich is quite the star in my post it seems.  Oh, and what was that Derek, you won't be home for Thanksigiving?  Well okay be lame like that.  And I probably shouldn't expect to see you over Winter Break as well.  And I know you cringe at that because it's true.  Except only slightly cringe because secretly you love snow more than friends.  Therefore I hope everywhere has as shitty a year as last year in terms of winter sports.  Yeah I said it.

Now, the Euphrates River must be a puzzling one to you.  I wrote it down because it came up in two separate instances in my life.  If you have already guessed the first then you are either Rich, Derek, or Max (who I don't think reads anyone's posts besides Dereks so I think we're safe there) but yes, the first mention of it was in the Bartimaeus book.  Ooooh spoilers, now you know something about the setting.  Sorry lads.  The second mention of it was in my ChemE class.  Two mentions of the Euphrates River in one week.  I thought it was quite unique and you should too considering I am not Cole and thus not taking Near Eastern Studies this semester.

The reference in my ChemE class pairs with my next point, the "hydrogen economy."  I've stressed this already too much but honestly this class is the best thing I have or think ever will take.  I fucking love the professor.  The reason I wrote these two points, said body of water and said Bush fantasy, down was because they consisted of one particular aspect of chemical engineering that was one of the more exciting tidbits we've covered.  Also, I realize now, I can group in the "base" and "felt like a bamf" points into this story as well.  We'll skip over rain for now.

Actually we'll address it right now.  It rained.  I don't like rain.

K back to the story.  I'm sure you all have heard of the standard chemical engineering unit called the "distillation column."  Well, completely unrelated to that on a process perspective, but quite similar in appearance are units called "absorbers" and "strippers" (Scandalous, eh?  We haven't even gotten into "flashers" yet).  These, respectively, absorb components of a vapour phase into a solvent and then strip the component from the solvent back into another vapour.  I have included a picture from my notes to help you out.

The only picture in this post.
This absorber-stripper combination is one such method, as depicted in my notes, of purifying hydrogen for use in the hydrogen economy some prophesize about.  What is interesting is that if one desires enough hydrogen to fuel the world's economy we would need to deal with flow rates greater than that of the Euphrates river (13,000 ft cubed/sec).  Which is astronomical.  Astronomical in terms of flow rates and astronomical because who would expect the Euphrates river to come up TWICE in one week from such unexpected circumstances. Ridiculous.

Well, this is where the next two points come in.  1. Base. and 2. I'm a badass.  The professor then asked the class how we would amend such a problem because obviously we are not going to be moving around liquids on the order of magnitude of the Euphrates River.  He asked four people in class and NO ONE KNEW THE ANSWER. But I, sitting in the back of the class, was squirming with excitement because I knew the answer.  Base. By adjusting the pH of the reaction vessel we could control the solubility of CO2 in water.  Thus, having the rare occasion in which I knew the answer while others did not, made me feel like a badass.  It was a glorious day indeed.

So I thought I didn't have anything to write about and I end up writing paragraphs on paragraphs on paragraphs (cheers to whoever got that reference to pop culture, you've descended to my level).  I think this is a trend with these posts.  You think you don't have a lot to write about and then you end up writing MUCH more than expected.  Can anyone confirm this hypothesis?  Oooooh hypothesis.  That word reminds me.  One thing I want to talk about that wasn't on my list that I've recently discovered I love... Oh wait this needs some backstory before I tell you.  I know the suspense is killing you.  Don't die yet.

I REALLY like my club. Like it's probably my favorite thing about school.  Or at least what I'm most passionate about. And in case you need clarification, "my club" is referring to WonderWorks, the club in which I go to elementary school's in the area and teach varying disciplines of science.  Teaching at the school is honestly one of the most rewarding feelings I get.  It's so encouraging to see them actually understand concepts that, having had an experience with higher education, will actually have an impact and be important for them to understand later in their life.  Thus, over the past two weeks or so I've considered maybe pursuing teaching in some form or another.

I by no means am committing to anything, but I was just thinking of how I would make my future both lucrative and enjoyable and I realized that some of the most enjoyable times are the times where I'm teaching science to elementary school kids.  It was and still is just a random thought that needs time to develop to see if it will actually mean something, but the idea of teaching high school where I get to teach a) the subject of my choice b) show students how awesome learning can be and c) make an impact on them in such a crucial stage of their growth, even in non-academic pursuits seems unreal.

I still like the idea of going to work in industry or some sort of start-up company however.  Idk, we'll see.  Maybe I'll do Teach for America or some other part-time teaching thing to just get the experience.  So much indecision bleh.  Well I think partly this revelation can be attributed to having such an awesome high school experience myself so thanks to a) my parents for moving to such an awesome school district and b) my teachers who are amazing both inside and outside the classroom.

Ok enough with that. I have one last thing to share then I'm done.  I was talking to someone (Bob) the other day and I was telling a story about how one of the alumni (Phi Psi) that came around during game day and was hating on global warming and its reputability.  It was a funny story because at the time, Curtis, Aaron and I were all just trying to mollify him by nodding out heads and saying "Mhmm" while our eyes met, betraying our amusement to one another.  However, as it turns out, the point that was the centerpiece of the guy's argument was actually true.  Us, in our natural disposition to shun the nonbelievers didn't take him seriously, but he was in fact right and ourselves foolish.  It goes as follows:

The truth is that only ice that is currently on land will contribute to sea level rise if it melts, not ice that is already afloat.  So by that logic the Northern ice cap, a floating mass of ice, upon melting will not contribute whatsoever to sea level rise.  Something that the three of us all thought was the opposite upon intuitive thought.  However, it is indeed the truth as is proved by simply physics all three of us learned freshman year.  This is not to say that sea level will not rise. It is only to say that floating ice contributes absolutely zero to any rise in sea level. It is debatable what contributes most to sea level rise (which in fact does happen with global warming), but some theorize that a major component is the volumetric thermal expansion of water which I just learned this semester and actually makes a lot more sense.

In conclusion, if you are to take anything out of this it is that a) floating ice contributes not to sea level rise, but rather volumetric thermal expansion does so in case you ever need to pull that one out in a debate, and b) it's funny to see how three people who should be knowledgeable in this subject simply get wrapped up in the polarity (ha!) of the arguments around the topic and neglect to check the information for themselves.

It's cool to be knowledgeable in stuff is I guess another thing I at least took away from my conversation with Bob.  Besides global warming... well actually related to global warming, Bob was asking about what the most effective way to get rid of the CO2 from our exhaust streams was and because we had gone over it in my ChemE class I actually knew the answer.  Being able to explain Carbon Sequestration methods to Bob was cool because it brought into perspective how the world works.  Bob is (approximately, I don't know for sure) a 3.9 GPA business and economics double major and already has a job with Morgan Stanley set up for when he graduates (he's a senior now).  It brought into perspective that although Bob is a master of all things econ, he doesn't know much about chemical engineering. And it was neat to think of this conversation as a motif for how conditions in the work environment will be for me in the future.  Bringing together people of different specificities to combine their knowledge into one project.

Okay, I think I'm done for now.  I hope this post makes up for many lackluster weeks prior.  I've finally got a break from some work so I have a little time now.  I honestly cannot wait for Thanksgiving.  Hope everyone does well with Midterms and everything, I'm done with all mine now and so begins the long stretch to finals.

See you next week,

Jason

7 comments:

  1. Yes Jason, this post does make up for past ones. Very enjoyable. With one HUGE exception. You know, the part where you basically said, "Derek, I hope you don't have any fun this winter, and I hope the hundreds of thousands of people who live and work in ski towns across the continent have a second consecutive year of economic devastation."

    I ought to point out that I will be in Newport Beach for the last week of 2012 and the first of 2013, so I'm not sure what you're worried about in the first place.

    All that aside, the bit about teaching and the bit about global warming were both excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT. I'm pretty sure that if you melt ice floating in sea water, the water level will rise. This argument hinges on what the density of the melted ice is compared to sea water, but I think that ice in the ocean is "purer" than the sea water. If you have any snow or rain over your ice, it will make the ratio of water molecules to solutes greater than sea water. Also, I think ice squeezes out solutes when it forms.

    Thought experiment time! Let's start with a liter of water in a rectangular prism with base 10cm by 10cm. Then the height of the water should be 10 cm. If you take say, 200 ml of that water, freeze it, and put it back in, the water level should still be 10 cm. Now what if you take your 200 ml of water and freeze it again, but this time add salt to the rest of the water? The density of the salt water is greater, so the buoyant force is stronger. There is also negligible change in volume. (actually, the volume decreases. weird, huh?) When you add the ice back in, it will float higher than before, which means that less water is displaced and the height of the water is less than 10 cm. Once the ice melts, though, it will once again read 10 cm.

    This kind of thinking scales back to our original problem. When ice formed from water of lower density melts into water with higher density, the water level rises. BAM. Science. Tell that to your alum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, your post could not have been more timely. Tell me more about carbon sequestration! I've decided that I'm going to write an op-ed about it for a final project in one of my classes. (Specifically, saying that we should fund more research in carbon-capturing if we really want to slow climate change.) I also want to know the possibilities of turning CO2 into something useful by some crazy chemical reaction, not entirely unlike plants. I'm thinking I want to do research in that area.

      I won't be in California for Thanksgiving or Christmas :(

      Delete
    2. Wow, that last line was sassy. Sorry. Maybe I need more sleep. Or maybe I'm just excited because I get to share this thought experiment I came up with when someone told me the exact same thing about global warming last year. Anyway. OBAMA.

      Delete
  3. Haha no you're right about the science. Solute takes into account, however in this case I was assuming a spherical cow...wait no that's not it. I was assuming solute transfer doesn't contribute greatly because if you solve the equations it becomes deltaV=(rho_ice/rho_water-rho_ice/rho_fluid)Vicetotal I believe. My work is back in my dorm so maybe I'll confirm later. But under that consideration the densities of salt vs regular water is almost negligible (around 1.000 vs 0.999 from what I understand) so the total sea level rise would be around (taken from a source that I don't have the exact reference for neither reputability for) 4-5 cm when all the floating ice transforms into liquid water. This amount is negligible when you consider the expectations of a 4-6 m change in sea level due to other factors(assuming a 1-4 C increase in temperature). Volumetric expansion contributes (under my very rudimentary calculations) around 0.79 m to sea level rise which is much more significant.

    So yeah, my bad for not making that clear.

    I think next week I'll do a video with all the information I have on carbon sequestration. That sounds like a fun project. Maybe that will help you and if it doesn't then I'm sure I can gchat or something with you for more help. Or direct you to research that my prof provides me with, which would probs be more helpful.

    I'm sad you aren't going to be around for those two breaks, you will be missed :(

    ReplyDelete
  4. So wikipedia says 1.025 vs 1 g/ml. Either way, it's true that floating ice doesn't do much to raise sea levels. I think the biggest contributor might be melting land ice. There's so much ice on Greenland that if it melted, sea levels would rise a few meters.

    Maybe we can gchat this weekend? I'm fairly busy until Thursday night. I also found out that there's a carbon capture program at MIT. I think I'll try to get a research job there next semester.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah that's what I've heard is a big contributor. Specifically the Greenland ice like you mentioned.

    I'm available Sunday day and Monday to gchat if you want. I don't know if you get off Monday, but we do?

    Carbon capture is definitely an interesting and necessary field of study. I don't know how interesting it is in itself though. I found it interesting because of its applicability to other engineering techniques. Definitely go for research though, that sounds like it could be cool. A lot (and I don't exaggerate here, there's an entire new building around it) of research in Berkeley is devoted to "Energy Biosciences" and it's a quickly growing field. For example, my two friends are doing research at a lab that researches enhanced oil recovery using microbes. It's crazy how far-reaching energy research can be.

    ReplyDelete