A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!

There are many reasons why science outreach is critical in our world today.  In the past, the importance has been present.  Although, with the explosion of the internet and the devices along with the climate changes that are being seen, science outreach might be at an all time high.  Action needs to be taken with the help of a much-needed educated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) population rising up through the educational ranks as we speak.  With that in mind, we still have a long way to go.  Below are two examples of why we need to communicate science more effectively.  These two examples have relevance to the spread of the 'Zika' virus occurring in the United States today.

Science Is Not Properly Communicated!

Yes, science is really not properly communicated.  At present, the method of dissemination is either through an academic conference, a poster, a speaking engagement, or through a research article.  Here is an example of an abstract of a research paper taken from Nature Molecular Psychiatry titled "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder In Adults: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Genetic, Pharmacogenetic, and Biochemical Studies" shown below:

The adult form of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder has a prevalence of up to 5% and is the most severe long-term outcome of this common disorder. Family studies in clinical samples as well as twin studies suggest a familial liability and consequently different genes were investigated in association studies. Pharmacotherapy with methylphenidate (MPH) seems to be the first-line treatment of choice in adults with attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) and some studies were conducted on the genes influencing the response to this drug. Finally some peripheral biomarkers were identified in ADHD adult patients. We believe this work is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of candidate gene association studies, pharmacogenetic and biochemical (metabolomics) studies performed in adults with ADHD to identify potential genetic, predictive and peripheral markers linked specifically to ADHD in adults. After screening 5129 records, we selected 87 studies of which 61 were available for candidate gene association studies, 5 for pharmacogenetics and 21 for biochemical studies. Of these, 15 genetic, 2 pharmacogenetic and 6 biochemical studies were included in the meta-analyses. We obtained an association between adult ADHD and the gene BAIAP2 (brain-specific angiogenesis inhibitor 1-associated protein 2), even after Bonferroni correction, with any heterogeneity in effect size and no publication bias. If we did not apply the Bonferroni correction, a trend was found for the carriers allele 9R of dopamine transporter SLC6A3 40 bp variable tandem repeat polymorphism (VNTR) and for 6/6 homozygotes of SLC6A3 30 bp VNTR. Negative results were obtained for the 9-6 haplotype, the dopamine receptor DRD4 48 bp VNTR, and the enzyme COMT SNP rs4680. Concerning pharmacogenetic studies, no association was found for the SLC6A3 40 bp and response to MPH with only two studies selected. For the metabolomics studies, no differences between ADHD adults and controls were found for salivary cortisol, whereas lower serum docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) levels were found in ADHD adults. This last association was significant even after Bonferroni correction and in absence of heterogeneity. Other polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) such as AA (arachidonic acid), EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DyLA (dihomogammalinolenic acid) levels were not different between patients and controls. No publication biases were observed for these markers. Genes linked to dopaminergic, serotoninergic and noradrenergic signaling, metabolism (DBH, TPH1, TPH2, DDC, MAOA, MAOB, BCHE and TH), neurodevelopment (BDNF and others), the SNARE system and other forty genes/proteins related to different pathways were not meta-analyzed due to insufficient data. In conclusion, we found that there were not enough genetic, pharmacogenetic and biochemical studies of ADHD in adults and that more investigations are needed. Moreover we confirmed a significant role of BAIAP2 and DHA in the etiology of ADHD exclusively in adults. Future research should be focused on the replication of these findings and to assess their specificity for ADHD.

What was your take on this abstract?  Here is another abstract from the same issue of Nature Molecular Psychiatry titled "Changes For Clozaprine Monitoring In The United States" shown below:

Clozapine is a unique compound that is particularly effective for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS). The use of clozapine is limited, however, due to the 0.8% risk of agranulocytosis,1 which necessitates a strict monitoring of neutrophil counts to detect early neutropenia and prevent progression to agranulocytosis.

First and foremost, I must admit that one of these is an article -- specifically a 'review' while the other is a "news and commentary" -- which means that the formats are quite different.  Still, the abstracts are extremely different.  Why?



What about if I show you an abstract from a different journal?




How about the journal 'Nature Chemical Biology'?




Here is an abstract from an article titled "Progress And Prospects For Small-Molecule Bacterial Imaging" shown below:

Fluorescence microscopy is an essential tool for the exploration of cell growth, division, transcription and translation in eukaryotes and prokaryotes alike. Despite the rapid development of techniques to study bacteria, the size of these organisms (1–10 μm) and their robust and largely impenetrable cell envelope present major challenges in imaging experiments. Fusion-based strategies, such as attachment of the protein of interest to a fluorescent protein or epitope tag, are by far the most common means for examining protein localization and expression in prokaryotes. While valuable, the use of genetically encoded tags can result in mislocalization or altered activity of the desired protein, does not provide a readout of the catalytic state of enzymes and cannot enable visualization of many other important cellular components, such as peptidoglycan, lipids, nucleic acids or glycans. Here, we highlight the use of biomolecule-specific small-molecule probes for imaging in bacteria.

I think that these four abstracts illustrate the point.  Right about now, the reader (you) might be thinking the following regarding the three abstracts above:




What do those abstracts mean?



What science is being done?



Why are the words and sentences so complicated? 



Am I right?  Were you thinking any of the three questions above.  I know that I would be -- especially, if I had very little of a science background to serve as a starting point when reading them.

Science Communication Should Be Simple

In a recent TED talk by Tyler DeWitt titled "Hey Science teachers -- Make It Fun" the problem with communicating science is discussed in a simple and elegant manner.  Tyler is a graduate student at the MIT.



Below are two avenues by which a virus can infect a cell.  Given that the 'Zika' virus is spreading among the United States population, the stories below are completely relevant to current stories in the popular news press.  I paraphrased the speech by Tyler DeWitt and used 'still images' from his TED talk below.



Story #1 goes as follows:

The story starts off with a happy little bacterium who is occupying a medium -- say your stomach.  Over time the bacterium starts to not feel well as depicted in the slide below:

While pondering over the many reasons which might lead to a cause for the feeling, he looks down to notice the culprit -- a virus who is emerging from his body as shown below:

And with time, the situation is getting very worse while the viruses keep poring out from his body as pictured below:

Now there are two different viewpoints to describe the situation that is occurring.  From the standpoint of the bacterium, the situation is worsening exponentially with time hosting an army of viruses.  While, from the viewpoint of the virus, each little virus is thinking the following:

"We rock!"  From the viruses viewpoint, the first virus managed to get into the host and successfully propagate -- evolve.  In order to complete the mission of evolving a number of complex steps had to occur for survival to happen.  Lets review them from the standpoint of the virus.



First, the virus had to slip a copy of its DNA into the bacterium as shown below:

In order for the virus to proceed to copy its DNA, the virus had to destroy the DNA of the bacterium as shown below:

After gaining control of the bacterium by destroying the bacterial DNA, the bacterium will not propagate (copy) only the DNA of the virus.  The bacterium is serving as the host factory producing multiple copies of the virus as shown below:

The bacterium will continue to make copies of the virus since the 'blue print' has been changed from the bacterium's DNA to the viruses DNA.  Manufacturing the virus will not stop until the bacterium bursts due to holding 'too many copies' of the virus as shown below:

The above steps illustrate one avenue by which viruses "infect" bacteria to takeover as a host.



Is there an alternate way for the virus to invade the bacteria and take over to use as a host?



Yes!  There is -- which is outlined below:



The virus starts out as a "secret agent" as shown below:

With the ability to secretly insert its DNA into the DNA of the bacterium as shown.  The insertion process has no damaging effect like the first avenue of replication did in the example above.  The DNA appears to be normal inside the bacterium as shown below:

As mentioned, the secret agent is able to insert his DNA into the bacterium who is unaware of the insertion and lives life normally.  Over time, the bacterium reproduces/replicates itself and makes many copies of the "inserted DNA" which has been silent as shown below:

The silent/inactive inserted DNA is not recognizable to the bacterium until a "signal" is sent among the bacterium and the virus DNA pieces pop out and take control over all of the bacterium -- also shown above.  After the virus DNA has taken over the bacterium, the replication process of the virus occurs as shown below:

The bacterium have been turned into virus making factories.  Extended copies of the virus are produced in each bacterium until the bacterium bursts and releases all of the copies of the viruses as shown below:

And with that, the viruses have won by dominating and replicating through the bacterium.  Shown in the slides (which are still pictures taken from Tyler Dewitt's TED talk) are two different stories.

These two stories represent the two pathways by which a virus can attack cells!!!!



On the left hand-side of the picture above is the first pathway (the lytic pathway) -- where the viruses insert themselves and take control over the cell (bacterium) immediately.  Whereas, in the second pathway (lysogenic pathway), the virus inserts their DNA and that DNA stays dormant until a signal is sent.



Was that hard to explain and comprehend or what?



All science should be that simple - right?



Virtually, everyone who has graduated high school has been exposed to these two pathways in their biology class.  The difference is in the presentation of the material.  First, the presentation that each of us experienced was most likely more serious than the cartoon story above and certainly did not use cartoon characters like those presented above.



Why not?



The field of science suffers from a "seriousness" problem.  Which is to say, scientists, and the way that science is portrayed is too serious.  Science is meant to be fun too.  You can have fun doing science.  I do it every day!



In the next section before concluding, I will tie together the first two sections.  Namely, the seriousness of science -- which is a downfall and -- secondly, the language that is used.  Language seems to be the number one 'turn off' for students entering various fields of science.

Science Should Be Simplified!

Many of scientists that I know believe that making science simple is simply impossible.  Furthermore, the belief is centered around the idea that "dumbing down" science devalues the field.  This belief could not be further from the truth.  Let me explain why with more slides from Tyler DeWitt's TED talk above to illustrate my point.  There is no need to recreate the wheel.



In Tyler's TED talk, the two stories about the two possible avenues by which a virus can infect a cell were told.  And he used cartoons and very creative imagery along with simple words right.  Everything he said was easily digestible -- at least for me.



Textbooks often complicate explanations of science as do professional publications (i.e. journal articles -- as shown above).  Why do these publications use such complicated language to illustrate a point?  Because, that is the way the system is designed to be -- which needs to change.



In the example given in the TED talk above, the simple explanation might be something like:  Viruses make copies of themselves by slipping their DNA into a bacterium.   How would this look in the formal language inside of a textbook?  Here is an example -- a slide from the TED talk above with the informal explanation above and the formal explanation below:

Wow.  The two descriptions above look completely different.  The first (above) is one that I can relate to and would love to read.  Whereas the second (below) is completely a 'turn off' and might very well put me to sleep.  Here is the divergence of the majority of people's attention.  When the practitioners of science transition from the top to the bottom description -- a large percentage of the audience drops off too.



Why does this transition occur in descriptions?



Because, in the simple description, not every word is accurate.  After going through and editing the statement for accuracy -- 100% accuracy, the statement would look like the one shown below with corrections:

And this begs the question of science: can we describe science with slightly inaccurate descriptions?  I would argue that the answer is yes.  Why?  Because, a majority of the undergraduate education uses "toy examples" to illustrate the concepts and theories.  For example, in the undergraduate curriculum students learn about "ideal gases" and the ideal gas law.  The assumption is that gas molecules are "point particles" and do not "interact."  What does this mean?



Throughout the undergraduate degree process -- at least in Chemistry -- students are running calculations using the "ideal gas equation" to arrive at relations between chemical compounds.  Real gases do not behave ideally and computational coefficients are added to equations to take into account the 'non-linear' behavior.  The non-linear behavior arises when gas molecules react with one another or during the collision -- the molecules temporarily "stick together."  These types of properties are extremely complex and cannot be simulated with the limited (and great) computational power that society possesses today.  See?  This is why simplification can work.

Conclusion...Science Should Be Made Simple!

In order to capture the interests of the widest audience for science, the work has to be made simple.  A few professors worry about the simplification process attracting others to science.  Who cares if that happens?  Would we not want the best minds tackling the problems of society?  Yes, we would.  Science is meant to be fun -- not just serious without.



With captivating and creative descriptions by enthusiastic scientists like Tyler DeWitt, we have a great opportunity to engage a wider audience into science.  Although, if other scientists don't sign onto this line of thinking, the new avenue will run dry and we will be stuck with the same old 'broken' method of communicating science.



The world has changed over the decades.  Why shouldn't the communication evolve too to attract the widest array of audience members?  Technology is providing a whole new range of possibilities for the classroom to teach the message of science.  Why would we want to stick with the same broken method that has accomplished enough for the past few decades -- but is currently in need of an overhaul.



One of the overarching goals of this blog is to simplify science for everyone.  If you have an idea that you would like explained on the blog site, please leave a comment.  As you can see by reading the first few abstracts (descriptions of science studies in section one), we have a long way to go.  Lets all band together and demand a change of our system to move toward a more creative and captivating educational system for all disciplines.  Until next time, Have a great day.

Ambassador Of Chemistry Has Followed Me All Of My Life -- Even In the Military

When your friends and family members realize that your majoring in Chemistry in college, you instantly become the "ambassador of chemistry."  Maybe the motivation behind that is to help motivate the person to really become the best chemist that is possible.  The realization that I had a mind that was tuned in to chemistry/physics came to me in high school at lunch time.




In the following paragraphs, I will explain how chemistry followed me into the military.  Specifically, I will highlight two separate environments -- high school and the military to illustrate my point -- your passion/interests are constantly intersecting your life.  Do you believe me? If not, read more below.  If so, read more below.

When Did Chemistry Appeal To Me?

Growing up, my father would always talk to me about chemistry.  Part of that is due to that he loved chemistry.  He is a true academic in the sense that he could get lost in studying science.  If he were to be taken hostage and locked up in a library, given the proper amount of food and clothing, he would live the remainder of his life happy as ever.  I remember when I was in Junior High, he put a bumper sticker on his car that read "Honk If You Got an A In P-Chem."  Who would have thought that two decades later I would become a "physical chemist."




My first exposure in academia to chemistry was kind of "off the beaten path."  I used to "ditch" classes quite a bit.  I missed a lot of high school one particular semester.  As a result, I was given a punishment.  First, I would attend Saturday detention from 8 am - 12 pm.  I remember my father proudly dropping me off to attend.  He was happy that I received a proper punishment for missing school.  Additionally, I had to skip lunch and report to the chemistry/physics teacher's classroom -- Mr. Barth -- now Dr. Barth.




What seemed like a punishment then, turned into a major part of my doctoral work a decade later.  I was given the task of building (with a friend) a track of alternating bar magnets.  The track was to be two magnets wide (around 4 inches) and around 6 feet long.  In total, there were around 250 magnets that we had to glue (opposite polarity) alternating (north to south).  At this point, you might ask the following question:




What was the purpose of the experiment?




In short, the object was to build a "magnetic levitation train" to measure the coefficient of friction.   Before I answer the question in detail, a visual diagram of the experimental setup would be very useful in interpreting the purpose of the experiment.  The experimental setup when completed appeared like the following photograph of the "kit" that sells today online:

Source: www.rainbowresource.com

In the diagram above, there appears to be a block of wood that is floating.  On either side of the track, there are plastic rails to hold the block of wood or magnetic car onto the track.  Back in the late 80s, our car was simply made out of cardboard with magnets glued onto the bottom.  There is a fair amount (a huge) of tedious work involved in building the track.  That process too prepared me for research in the physical science area.




The purpose of the track was to elevate one side of the track to form a "triangle."  The diagram would appear to be similar in nature to a block of wood sliding down a slanted surface.  Additionally, if the relevant forces are outlined, the diagram taken from the "Wikipedia" page emerges:

Source: By Krishnavedala




By studying the above diagram, the forces are outlined.  In the past, "force" has been introduced in another blog post as the product of the mass of an object with the gravitational acceleration constant pushing the object toward Earth.  Therefore, the only new concept is the force of friction.  Friction is created all around us.  Stop reading this blog and rub your hands together.  Do they start to heat up?  That is due to the friction between the two surfaces of your hands.  Got it! Good.




With a magnetic levitating track, where is the friction?  The only source of friction (neglecting wind resistance) is due to the car (cardboard) rubbing up against the plastic rails on the track.  By changing the angle of the track relative the the ground and measuring the time of travel, the coefficient of friction is easily determined.  That was our challenge.




I say "our" because there was another gentlemen in the room assigned to the project.  He did not miss school like me.  In fact, he was a straight "A" student.  He had a name -- Gil Vitug.  We became and remain very good friends.  At the time, he was more attracted to the physics side of life.  Years later, we both graduated with our doctorate degrees (Ph.D.) from University of California at Riverside.  He was working in Astrophysics (working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator) while I was working on developing instrumentation for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments.




From that experience, both of us learned the ability to extract a large amount of information from a low-cost setup.  Finding a way with limited funding to measure a quantity is extremely useful.  Especially, as science funding is becoming more difficult to receive.  That was a valuable experience and served as a springboard to which we became "science ambassadors."  Out of our school class, we were the two to work in academia.




After high school, I entered college and majored in chemistry with the intention of becoming a surgeon.  I wanted to end up in experimental medicine.  I even defined my own field -- experimental medicine.  Today, that desire would have translated to obtaining a "Md/Ph.D" degree and working in a government laboratory.  I had no clue at the time.  In fact, my father sat me down and had a talk with me during my junior year of college.  He suggested that I look into graduate school in chemistry rather than medicine based on my responses to his questions regarding experimental medicine.  I was at the time and remain extremely grateful for that discussion.




Why did I diverge onto that tangent?



Out of those experiences, came a love for chemistry.  The experiences were not traditional to me.  Late night discussions with my father over topics such as dropping a penny into a bottle of beer spurred my interests in thinking about chemistry.  I was not a good student in school.  I did show up every day to class.  And, I was able to entertain concepts in science reasonably well.  The concepts would be in my head.




What remained to be a delinquency was the patience to sit down and study along with explaining the concepts contained within my head.  The process of beginning to tackle that delinquency took up the better part of the next decade.  Although, with the help of certain individuals (like my father and Dr. Bath along with Gil -- now Dr. Vitug) and a military sergeant, the path was easier.  Each person challenges me to become a better person.  Furthermore, optimizing the shortcomings in my life has been a continuous challenge -- still to this day.  Let me explain briefly how.

Chemistry In The Military?

How can a soldier study chemistry in the military?  As I mentioned in a previous blog post, chemistry is all around us.  Everything involves chemistry!  What determines whether a soldier studies or utilizes chemistry is their job classification or rank.  If an enlisted soldier decides to become an officer, he/she returns to college and majors in science.  That could involve returning to a job in the military that involves directly performing research.




Although, the more probable situation would be to assigned a job where the requirements have no direct connection to chemistry.  Additionally, as an enlisted soldier, the job is most likely going to entail no direct connection to research in sciences.  That is reserved more for a position like an officer or a civilian employee.



I was assigned to work as an electrician on the fighter aircraft F-16.  That entailed working on the jet on the "flight line" along with working on the parts in a "back shop" setting.  What is the difference between the two: "flight line" and "back shop"?  Working on the "flight line" involves removing electrical components (generators, rheostats, controllers, batteries, chargers, etc.) and environmental components (bleed air valves, air condition controllers, water separation units, etc.) along with repairing the associated wiring and ducting to those components.



This is different from working in the "back shop" or the component repair shop.  The component repair shop is a The two types of work are very different but have the same mission.  The overall mission is to keep aircraft in the air.  With that being said, work that arrives in the "back shop" or component repair shop can be from any aircraft -- not just the F-16.  Since our base (Shaw AFB, South Carolina) was a predominantly F-16 air base, most of the components that we encountered to repair were from F-16 aircraft.




What does all this have to do with chemistry and being a chemistry ambassador?




When I first arrived at the base, my supervisor -- Master Sergeant Daniel Jonas asked me a series of questions.  These included if I had any college or university experience.  I answered yes -- I had 4 years in chemistry before dropping out.  He scolded me for dropping out and encouraged me to finish my degree in the military (and become an officer).  He also sent me to the "Middle East" 18 months out of the 24 months -- due to my popularity (hard work ethics).  Even though I did not get to go back to school while serving my country, I had the ability to demonstrate my knowledge of the field of chemistry by an assignment -- which was an interesting and unusual occurrence in the military.  Especially for an enlisted soldier in his/her first tour of duty.




Master Sergeant Daniel Jonas was a curious man.  In fact, he had an unquenchable thirst for information -- spanning all disciplines from economics through physical sciences.  He was a very interesting person to say the least.  I have often wondered how I happen to run across people in my life like him -- I am extremely fortunate.  My wife says, I attract these people -- who see my potential.  Maybe she is correct.




Anyways, Msgt. Jonas realized an issue with a battery and called on my chemistry skills to fix the problem.  Specifically, he was concerned about two aspects of recharging (or reconditioning) the F-16 battery.  First, the unusually large amount of waste generated in the process of charging the battery.  Second, the methodology of charging the battery which degraded the lifetime of the battery -- which was nominally around 3-5 years.  Let me explain the situation using science language.




Hazardous Waste Generation




The F-16 battery is a single unit (one case) that houses 24 cells that are linked together in "series."  A picture of the battery is shown below:

Source: Public Domain

With the diagram of each "cell" shown below:

Source: By Ransu, Public Domain

In order to understand the problems that Msgt. Jonas recognized, the chemical reactions of the discharging and charging cycle of the battery need to be known.  Shown below are the chemical reactions of the two cycles of the Nickel Cadmium battery taken from the patent webpage for the "battery charger":

Upon inspection of the chemical reactions, the hydroxide ions play a critical role in the discharge/charge cycle over the course of the life of the battery.  The electrolyte solution must contain a chemical that upon dissociation produces a hydroxide ion.  For the battery above, the chemical is a solution of potassium hydroxide in water.  This is important in recognizing the problem that needed to be fixed to extend out the life of the battery.




I was tasked to understand the charging/discharging cycle of the battery.  Furthermore, I was tasked with explaining the problem to the other members of the back shop working on the batteries.  Before I go into that, the charging cycle needs to be understood.  Looking at the "Wikipedia" page for the "Nickel-Cadmium Battery" the process proceeds like in the following manner:

Vented cell (wet cell, flooded cell) NiCd batteries are used when large capacities and high discharge rates are required. Traditional NiCd batteries are of the sealed type, which means that charge gas is normally recombined and they release no gas unless severely overcharged or a fault develops. Unlike typical NiCd cells, which are sealed, vented cells have a vent or low pressure release valve that releases any generated oxygen and hydrogen gases when overcharged or discharged rapidly. Since the battery is not a pressure vessel, it is safer, weighs less, and has a simpler and more economical structure. This also means the battery is not normally damaged by excessive rates of overcharge, discharge or even negative charge.

They are used in aviation, rail and mass transit, backup power for telecoms, engine starting for backup turbines etc. Using vented cell NiCd batteries results in reduction in size, weight and maintenance requirements over other types of batteries. Vented cell NiCd batteries have long lives (up to 20 years or more, depending on type) and operate at extreme temperatures (from −40 to 70 °C).

A steel battery box contains the cells connected in series to gain the desired voltage (1.2 V per cell nominal). Cells are usually made of a light and durable polyamide (nylon), with multiple nickel-cadmium plates welded together for each electrode inside. A separator or liner made of silicone rubber acts as an insulator and a gas barrier between the electrodes. Cells are flooded with an electrolyte of 30% aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH). The specific gravity of the electrolyte does not indicate if the battery is discharged or fully charged but changes mainly with evaporation of water. The top of the cell contains a space for excess electrolyte and a pressure release vent. Large nickel plated copper studs and thick interconnecting links assure minimum effective series resistance for the battery.

The venting of gases means that the battery is either being discharged at a high rate or recharged at a higher than nominal rate. This also means the electrolyte lost during venting must be periodically replaced through routine maintenance. Depending on the charge–discharge cycles and type of battery this can mean a maintenance period of anything from a few months to a year.

Vented cell voltage rises rapidly at the end of charge allowing for very simple charger circuitry to be used. Typically a battery is constant current charged at 1 CA rate until all the cells have reached at least 1.55 V. Another charge cycle follows at 0.1 CA rate, again until all cells have reached 1.55 V. The charge is finished with an equalizing or top-up charge, typically for not less than 4 hours at 0.1 CA rate. The purpose of the over-charge is to expel as much (if not all) of the gases collected on the electrodes, hydrogen on the negative and oxygen on the positive, and some of these gases recombine to form water which in turn will raise the electrolyte level to its highest level after which it is safe to adjust the electrolyte levels. During the over-charge or top-up charge, the cell voltages will go beyond 1.6 V and then slowly start to drop. No cell should rise above 1.71 V (dry cell) or drop below 1.55 V (gas barrier broken).

The take home point was that there was maintenance involved in the discharging/charging process over the course of the life of the battery.  My supervisor wondered why the life of the battery was no where near the length that was written by the factory.  This is where my job started -- since I had a chemistry background and interest in science.




To accommodate the expansion of the volume of liquid during the charging cycle, each instrument had a "turkey baster" sitting next to it for the easy removal of excess water.  During the dynamic charging cycle, the cells would expand due to the hydrogen gas being liberated.  The caps would be loosened and set beside the battery.  Essentially, the battery sat on the table top hooked up the charger and "open" (vent caps removed) to the environment.  Unknown to us at the time, that is where the problems lay the entire time -- the open cells to the atmosphere.  Why?

Source: www.rd.com

There were a couple of issues with the charging/disharging cycles that I started to mention above which may be confusing.  After the charging cycle, the "electrolyte" level might need to be adjusted (meaning removal or addition of water with the "turkey baster" device shown above) as discussed in the excerpt above.




The problem with this is the removal of the following: 1) electrolyte mixture -- KOH and H20 (Potassium hydroxide and water), and 2) the electrode (which decomposed).  Collecting these two chemicals is and disposing them safely (not down the drain) is required.  This means that the solution of waste has to be kept in a "hazardous waste" container -- which is picked up each week by a disposal company.  Each weak, the shop would generate on the order of 55 gallons of "hazardous waste" -- mostly water, but a little bit of potassium hydroxide, electrode (cadmium, nickel, etc.).   As you might imagine, this was a huge motivation to determine how to extend the life of the battery.




During the addition of water or the extraction of the electrolyte after charging, the problem was that the internal concentrations of all components had changed.  If the "turkey baster" was used to pull out water/KOH and electrode material, the over the course of the lifecycle of the battery -- each time that the battery was sent to be conditioned in the "back shop" -- the battery would be degraded ever so slightly.  Adding this up over time, renders the battery unusable.




Couple this to the competing chemical reaction occurring with the air -- which is shown below:

This reaction was not known to occur at the time of our investigation.  If Msgt. Jonas had not been so persistent in understanding all chemical reactions within the F-16 battery, the situation (short lifetime of the battery) would have continued on for decades.  What did I learn out of this?  Does any of this make sense to you (the reader)?  I know that I have been rambling on for a while.

Conclusion....

The point I would like to make with this post is that a persons true passion becomes apparent eventually in one's life -- whether they pursue work within that passion or not.  For Master Sergeant Jonas, that passion is an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.  He is a power house of knowledge and commands those around him "in directly" to be thirsty as well.  Amazing.  I have always loved chemistry in one form or another.  Dr. Dan Barth has taught chemistry and physics for decades.  My father shares a passion for the physical sciences (as well as others too).  Put all of us in a room together or have us interact with each other, and these shared interests will become apparent soon.  Additionally, each one will show their specific talent or interests over time.

Regardless if a person pursues their interests or not, those interests will become apparent over time.  For me, hanging out in the chemistry and physics classroom benefitted me greatly -- since this experience was aligned with my interests.  I imagine that the school counselor who assigned me to the room instead of detention saw my interests shine through at some point in our interactions.

Similarly, when I arrived in the US Air Force at Shaw AFB -- I must have exuded the interests in sciences.  This later caused me to be chosen to interpret and explain the work of Master Sergeant Jonas and the extension of the F-16 battery.  What does this have to do with you?

If you are at a point in your life where you have no idea of where to go in moving forward, just keep moving forward.  Eventually, your interests will come to the surface.  But, you must be willing to listen to yourself and observe your interests.  I will you luck in your adventure pursuing your interests.  Have a great day.

Try Cooking Spaghetti Like A Chemist!

Whenever I go to parties or social occasions, I get asked about my profession.  People will often comment to me when they learn that I am a chemist that "they do not think that way....analytically, or in atoms, molecules, etc."(or "I was terrible at math").  Other times, the person will carry on with the large differences in thought patterns.  The mere fact that people feel compelled to convey this information is fascinating.  Have scientists made themselves look that different to the non-scientist?  Are we doing that bad of a job?




This is not to say that science is easy to grasp with concepts (like atoms, molecules, photons, cells, etc.) that are not immediately visible.  Remember that each scientist has to work at understanding concepts.  Nothing is for free!  Why do I bring this up?  As you will see in the paragraphs below, there exist many scales by which to understand the world around us.  Everyone at least should have the pleasure of understanding that the scales exist.  At least, that is the position that I choose to take.

Boiling Water - Simple Right?

The process of boiling water is pretty simple at first sight right?  Just add water to the sauce pan and set on the stove top -- apply heat.  Simple.  Oh, and wait until you hear the familiar sound of the water boiling or see the bubbles emanating (rising up) from the water toward the surface of the water in the sauce pan.




To most people, this is a process that is routine in order to start cooking a variety of meals.  Some people carry this task out without even thinking about what is actually happening inside the sauce pan.  But what if we wanted to think of the process in terms of a chemist analyzing the heating process of boiling inside the sauce pan.  First, a proper definition of boiling is needed.




Since we started off with a description of boiling water in a sauce pan (a picture that is commonly seen in the kitchen), the next level of detail (scientific description) might be shown from "Wikipedia."  Below is the opening paragraph for the entry of "Boiling" taken from "Wikipedia" and serves an intermediate description of the process of boiling water:

Boiling is the rapid vaporization of a liquid, which occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding atmosphere. There are two main types of boiling; nucleate boiling where small bubbles of vapor form at discrete points, and critical heat flux boiling where the boiling surface is heated above a certain critical temperature and a film of vapor forms on the surface. Transition boiling is an intermediate, unstable form of boiling with elements of both types. The boiling point of water is 100 °C or 212 °F, but is lower with the decreased atmospheric pressure found at higher altitudes.

Why did I state that the above excerpt would serve as an intermediate description of the boiling process?




The reason is quite simple.  Because there exists no mention of the water molecules that make up the liquid that is being heated to the boiling point.  Additionally, at the boiling point as stated above, the pressure (vapor pressure) on the liquid by the atmosphere is equal to the pressure in the liquid.  Therefore, molecules are free to escape into the vapor form.  Of course, at this point, the number of molecules escaping depends on the concentration of the vapor.  There exists an equilibrium between the liquid and the vapor above the liquid.  Here is an excerpt to clarify the relationship between a liquid and the vapor pressure above the liquid taken from "Wikipedia" -- "Vapor Pressure":

Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is defined as the pressure exerted by a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases (solid or liquid) at a given temperature in a closed system. The equilibrium vapor pressure is an indication of a liquid's evaporation rate. It relates to the tendency of particles to escape from the liquid (or a solid). A substance with a high vapor pressure at normal temperatures is often referred to as volatile. The pressure exhibited by vapor present above a liquid surface is known as vapor pressure. As the temperature of a liquid increases, the kinetic energy of its molecules also increases. As the kinetic energy of the molecules increases, the number of molecules transitioning into a vapor also increases, thereby increasing the vapor pressure.

And the corresponding diagram which I found extremely useful also taken from the "Wikipedia" page is shown below:

Source: By HellTchi

As you can easily see, that there exists an "equilibrium" of molecules (indicated by red dots) in the diagram above.  What does this mean?  Equal number of molecules are going into solution (into the liquid) as there are leaving the solution (liquid) -- hence the "equilibrium state."




Upon reaching the boiling temperature of a liquid in a sauce pan, the "equilibrium" can be shifted in a certain direction.  Meaning, more molecules can escape if the system is open.  In the above diagram which was taken from the website "Wikipedia" there is a box around the diagram -- which indicates that the above diagram is a "closed system" in equilibrium.




If the top of the container were opened to the atmosphere, then water molecules would escape.  If you have ever boiled water for a long duration of time without refilling the water, then eventually, the water in the sauce pan would disappear.  The heat is driving the equilibrium in addition to the fact that the vapor (gas above the water) is diffusing into other areas of the kitchen and house.  The water liquid in the sauce pan is trying to form an equilibrium with the entire atmosphere (the space of the house).  Wow!  Think about it.




How does a chemist think about boiling water then?




Now that the process of boiling water has been properly defined, lets look at an example of a chemist looking to "model" the process going on inside of the sauce pan.  I borrowed an excerpt from an article out of the website "R&DMag.com" titled "Researchers Study Three-Way Battles In The Quantum World."  Here is the excerpt below:

  When water in a pot is slowly heated to the boil, an exciting duel of energies takes place inside the liquid. On the one hand, there is the interaction energy that wants to keep the water molecules together because of their mutual attraction. On the other hand, however, the motional energy, which increases due to heating, tries to separate the molecules. Below the boiling point the interaction energy prevails, but as soon as the motional energy wins the water boils and turns into water vapor. This process is also known as a phase transition. In this scenario the interaction only involves water molecules that are in immediate proximity to one another.

Do you think about that while staring into a pot of water that is arriving at the boiling temperature?  The above excerpt was to prime the reader about the ongoing fascinating research by the Quantum Electronics group at ETH Zurich.  Specifically, using a laser beam the group managed to trap in a "lattice" a few rubidium atoms.  By controlling the frequency of the lasers, there was control (or a monitor) of the rubidium atoms that might enter and exit the "lattice."




Why was this important?  As mentioned in the pot of water example, the "long-range" interactions were previously thought not to contribute to the process of boiling.  Now, with refinements in both "modeling" and experimentation, the group was able to study the long range interactions.  The work is a good step in the right direction to studying unique properties of liquids in complex environments.



The significance is stated by the authors as follows:

  "Using this trick we now have three competing energy scales in our system: besides the motional and interaction energies there is, in addition, the energy associated with the long-range interaction", explains Landig. "By varying the motional energy and the long-range interaction energy, we are able to study a number of novel quantum phase transitions."

Having a better understanding of phase transitions will be critical in our ability to study certain scales.  What is meant by this?  Typically, we live on the "Classical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physicsScale" -- the scale where we study objects like



Most people do not.

Adding Pasta To Boiling Water!

Now that you have had an introduction molecules and atoms -- so far as these concepts apply to the example above -- which was the boiling pot of water, lets make a complicated system into an even more complicated system.  I have yet to read the book titled "The Wonders Of Physics" by the author Dr. so and so.  I found a few excerpts which swayed me into purchasing the book.




Yes, I have a large amount of mental debt.  That is what I refer to as having too many books in the queue to read.  On my shelf at home along with books on another shelf at my office, there are two stacks of books -- that I am reading.  Yes, I can read multiple books at once.  No, I am not special.  My grandmother passed the ability to do so genetically -- I found out in my early 30's -- when I encountered her multiple stacks.  Anyways, here is an excerpt that has relevance to the discussion of cooking pasta that was taken from his book:

The authors take the science a step further than I had previously done with the above description taken from the article in laboratory magazine.  Well written and succinct to the level of detail with which can drive thought among a chemist about the various factors involved in the chemistry of cooking.  Of course, to a chemist, the process of cooking is traditionally reduced to a "reaction" which produces a "product."  The recipe dictates the conditions under which the "reaction" will take place to produce the desired "product" -- your meal.




Chances are the next time you eat a meal, you will have a thought regarding the chemistry behind the "reaction" needed to produce the meal.  If you choose to learn more about the topic, maybe in the future, you can switch professions and become a chemist working on the problem of pasta's for a company like "Kraft" that sells pasta products.  Chemists are needed to fill these positions.




Prior to reading this blog post, you might have just thought that non-chemists were the people responsible for coming up with the wonderful recipe that produces the meal that you desire.  The initial cooking recipe might have been started by a non-scientist.  But if a company produces the product and tries to optimize the product, chances are the there is a "food scientist" behind the process (Research & Design).  Food science is a huge field worth exploring.




Going back to the excerpt above, I am amazed at the level of detail at which "food scientists" work at.  Understanding the composition of pasta and the relevant parts that the components play during the cooking process (heating pasta in boiling water) is fascinating.  I cannot wait to read the book.  Maybe I will have to move that particular book to the top of the pile of "books to read."



Furthermore, I will have to investigate how the authors came up with the detailed explanation of the formation of "gluten" when heating the pasta.  Why is this important?  Currently, there is a large push in food industry to provide "gluten free" products.  I have been curious about this emerging trend.  Seems like the chance of not seeing a sign out in front of food vendors in Los Angeles labeled "Gluten Free" is near impossible.  I always wonder -- what does that mean?




According to the above excerpt, "glutenin" and "gliadin" along with water form a network (or net) that is termed "gluten."  Gluten is responsible for the rise and elasticity of the bread as indicated on the "Wikipedia" page for "gluten":

Gluten (from Latin gluten, "glue") is a mixture of proteins found in wheat and related grains, includingbarley, rye,^[1] oat,^[2] and all their species and hybrids (such as spelt,^[3] kamut, and triticale^[3][4]). Gluten giveselasticity to dough, helping it rise and keep its shape and often gives the final product a chewy texture.

The properties of proteins are responsible for incorporating these ingredients into food products such as breads, pastas, cereals, etc.  Chemistry is amazing.  If we want to further understand which ingredient is playing a certain role, scientists have uncovered that too with the following excerpts for "glutenin" and "gliadin" from their respective "Wikipedia" pages:




"Glutenin":

Glutenin (a type of glutelin) is the major protein within wheat flour, making up 47% of the total protein content. The glutenins are protein aggregates of high-molecular-mass (HMW) and low-molecular-mass (LMW) subunits with molar masses from about 200,000 to a few million, which are stabilized by intermolecular disulfide bonds, hydrophobic interactions and other forces. Glutenin is responsible for the strength and elasticity of dough.[1]

And, next is "Gliadin":

Gliadin is a class of proteins present in wheat and several other cereals within the grass genus Triticum. Gliadins, which are a component of gluten, are essential for giving bread the ability to rise properly during baking. Gliadins and glutenins are the two main components of the gluten fraction of the wheat seed. This gluten is found in products such as wheat flour. Gluten is split about evenly between the gliadins and glutenins, although there are variations found in different sources.

Imagine the research that went into investigating that out of the many different proteins in wheat along with other cereals, the research narrowed down to two proteins: glutenin and gliadin.  I wonder what the spectroscopic signatures of these two proteins are?  How was the research carried out to narrow down to these two proteins?  How were the proteins characterized?  That is another topic for another blog.




Where do we go from here with this blog post?

How About A Conclusion?

Lets recap on the underlying message so far in the blog post.  First, simple processes like cooking can be extremely complicated depending on the scale of viewing.  With respect to the problem of cooking pasta the following has been shown.  If you are considering the macroscopic scale, then you might be concerned with consistency or smoothness, or softness of the pasta along with the temperature at which you are cooking the pasta.  Furthermore, if you are cooking the pasta at different altitudes or environments, the recipe might change.  What about if you are looking at the process from the eyes of a chemist or food scientist?




If you are viewing the problem (cooking pasta in boiling water) as a chemist, there are different scales at which to think about the problem.  On the microscale or even nanoscale, you have these molecular systems in a complex environment.  Establishing a vapor equilibrium with the environment above the liquid.  If that environment is closed (e.g. having a saucepan with a lid on it), then refilling the water might not be necessary.  The liquid will establish an "equilibrium" with the "headspace" of vapor above the liquid.  There might be visible water droplets on the lid of the saucepan -- which after growing to a certain size will be overcome by the force of gravity and drop back into the boiling water.  At that point more water molecules will escape into the "headspace" between the liquid and the lid to establish an "equilibrium" state at that temperature and pressure.




What about an open sauce pan of boiling water?



Upon boiling, the system which is made up of gas and liquid will still try to establish an "equilibrium" with itself.  The problem is that the system is open.  Which means that the liquid in the pan will establish an "equilibrium" with the entire house -- as the water vapor diffuses throughout the rooms of the house.  Diffusion occurs due to having a high concentration of water vapor in a small area and a lower concentration throughout the house.  There is something to think about -- that will occupy your mind for a while.




Thinking like a scientist is not a decision -- once you have been exposed to the concepts.  You might be able to get away with ignoring the concepts when viewing the environment around you for a short time.  Why would you want to do that?  Do the concepts above give you a headache?  No worries if they do.  Understanding the concepts behind science take time.  That is why education is a life long learning process.  As highlighted above, every day, new ideas and concepts about the world are emerging and in every greater detail.  Again, this is why learning science should be fun and entertaining and also a life long pursuit.  I hope that you never look at a boiling pot of water the same way ever again.  Until next time, enjoy the day!