SAS E-Bulletin-- Week of July 20, 2001
compiled by Shawn Carlson
Printed Amateur Scientists' Bulletin Officially Suspended
Time to face reality. On of our Board members recently suggested that the success of the E-Bulletin has made the printed quarterly version of Amateur Scientists' Bulletin obsolete. He knew fell well about our logistics problems that made it impossible for us to consistently produce a quarterly newsletter. The printed version required a dedicated Editor to develop extensive quality materials from volunteer tech writers. Then it all had to be type set, proofed, corrected. Then the plates had to be made. Then the bulletin had to be printed, stabled and finally delivered to our office. Then we had to generate mailing labels. The the whole package had to be taken to the mailing house for assembly and final mailing. Once things got to the printers, things went pretty well. But generating the material and doing the editing and layout has proved simply impossible for us our all volunteer staff to do consistently.
By contrast, the new format is a dream to put together. It 's more timely and topical and so stimulates more interaction with our members. We're getting more people writing to us and delivering material now than we ever had with the Bulletin. The pieces are shorter, but they are coming from a broader spectrum of our membership. Folks are contributing who never thought to contribute before. The live Internet links and enhanced connectivity allows us to provide more information each week as we ever delivered in a whole quarter. As a result, our members will now get much more useful info as they ever received before. And it's easy to keep this a member's only publication. Only members will receive email which contains the necessary link.
The Board took up this issue in an impromptu meeting and decided that the printed Bulletin should be suspended until further notice.
I know that many of our members prefer a paper newsletter and I have stalwartly defended it in the past. But that was before we started hitting our stride with the electronic format. Each week the E-Bulletin is getting bigger and better as we realize more things that we can do with it. And it costs SAS almost nothing to deliver. And believe me, when we're trying to pay rent and a keep Nancy working to deliver your other membership services, cost is an extremely important factor.
So it's time to bite the bullet. There will be no more printed bulletins. I shall shortly alter the Web site accordingly.
In time when we have the resources to throw at it, I hope to revive the Bulletin, but not as a members only publication. Rather, I'd like to create a magazine to rival the old Science Probe that would be sold through newsstands. In the meanwhile, I hope you will continue to enjoy the new format, and that you will contact me to let me know how we can make this electronic publication an even better fit to your needs.
HELP: SAS WEB MIMIC WREAKING HAVOC!
Want to see something really strange? Check out this link. It shows up on all the search engines. Someone copied the SAS home page to their server in 1997 and it's still operational. If someone does a google search for "Society for Amateur Scientists," this strange thing comes up near to top! HEY, IF YOU OWN THIS SITE, PLEASE KILL IT NOW. Otherwise, I'll take any advice as to how to find the owner or otherwise get this thing off the air.
Lab Notes
LN1: How to Produce Smoke to Make Air Flow in a Wind Tunnel Visible
by Dushan Mitrovich (adapted from The Amateur Scientist CD-ROM)
If you'd like to make air flow visible in a wind tunnel, try this. Burn joss sticks (available in Chinese stores) to generate the smoke; they work better than cigarettes, which produce more heat, or titanium tetrachloride, which is corrosive and clogs the nozzles. The joss sticks, cut to a length of about one inch and impregnated with a few drops of lighter fluid, are placed on a horizontal wire mesh, which serves as a supportive grate, that is placed inside the smoke chamber. To provide enough air to keep them burning, the fan must be running whenever the generator is operating. The pile is ignited, permitted to burn for a few seconds and then blown out. It continues to deliver a dense smoke.
LN2: Pumping Speeds of Vacuum Pumps
by John Strong (From Procedures in Experimental Physics)
Consider a vessel that contains a gas at pressure P and opens through an aperture to a region where a high vacuum is maintained. Further assume that this high vacuum is to be maintained at a pressure so much lower than P that it is essentially a perfect vacuum. The volume of gas escaping through the aperture per unit time, dV/dt, measured at pressure P, is given by the formula
where A is the area of the aperture. The value of dV/dt for air (M = 29) at room temperature (T = 300° Kelvin) is 11,700 cc/sec/cm^2, or 11.7 liters/sec/cm^2. [So, each square centimeter of hole pumps 11.7 liters of room temperature air in one second. That's a good brass-tacks number to know. SC] Note that dV/dt is independent of the pressure in the vessel.
So, an aperture of unit area connected to a perfect vacuum will pump with a speed of 11.7 liters/sec. Oil and mercury diffusion pumps have two characteristics in common with such an aperture. They have pumping speeds of the same order of magnitude as the aperture, and their observed pumping speeds are roughly constant over a considerable pressure range.
The speed of a diffusion pump is, accordingly, expressed as the volume of gas passing through the throat of the pump measured at the pressure which obtains at the throat. The "speed factor" of a pump is defined to be the ratio of its speed per unit area of the throat to the value 11.7 liters/sec. A good oil diffusion pump has a speed factor of about 0.5 or 0.6. The speed factor for mercury diffusion pumps varies from 0.1 to 0.3.
The pumping speed of diffusion pumps can
be measured by means of a leak like the one shown in the figure
above. Gas at atmospheric pressure is allowed to leak into the
pumping line. The rate at which the gas is introduced is measured
by the motion of a mercury pellet in the calibrated capillary
tube. At the same time the pressure at the throat of the pump
is determined with a vacuum manometer. The rate dV/dt at which
gas passes through the pump is obtained by multiplying the volume
which the mercury pellet sweeps through per unit time by the ratio
of the pressure in the capillary (that is, the barometric pressure)
to the pressure which obtains at the pump throat.
LN3: How to Clean Up Spilled Mercury
by Robert Dean
A lot of amateur scientists store and use mercury in their laboratories. If you're one of them, it's important that you understand the dangers associated with using mercury and that you are ready to clean up a spill should one happen.
Mercury, with its high surface tension and surprisingly high toxicity should not be used or stored where it might be mishandled. In a closed room with circulating air, spilled mercury can release enough vapor to injure anyone present. Mercury droplets cannot be swept up unless the brush is soaking wet. A film of water around a drop of mercury drags it to rest and prevents it from skating all over the floor. When the droplets can no longer skate they can be brushed together and disposed of with care. After disposal of the mercury, spread "flowers of sulfur" in all the cracks where mercury might be hiding. The finely divided elemental sulfur reacts with mercury vapor to form nonvolatile mercury sulfides. Do not let mercury get in touch with Zinc, Copper, Silver, or Gold because it can form amalgams with these and several other metals and remain on their surfaces. If that happens, this surface contamination will continue to release mercury vapor into the air. NEVER USE MERCURY OVER A CARPET! A spill there and the carpet must be pulled up and disposed of as contaminated waste.
[NOTE: Those of you who store mercury, please review how you're handling it. Just as every lab should have a first aid kit, any lab with stored liquid mercury inside should have a mercury clean up kit containing a plastic dust pan and brush, a mist bottle, and powered sulfur. You can use your SAS membership to purchase powdered sulfur at a discount just by letting Nancy know that you'd like some. SC.]
LN4: Focograms
by A. E. Gee
Contrary to what many people believe, the focal ratio of a mirror does not determine the exposure required for a focogram. Think about it this way. Obviously, the same exposure that would give a focogram for an f/4 mirror would give an equally good focogram of the central half of the mirror if it were stopped down to f/8. The mirror is the object being photographed, not the lens taking the photograph.
The lens of the focogram camera is the image of the pinhole produced by the mirror. The light source is the pinhole itself. Ignoring for the moment the reflectivity and figure of the mirror and the presence of the knife-edge, the necessary exposure is solely dependent upon the intensity of the light source, size of the pinhole, sensitivity of the film and distance from the pinhole image to the film. If these factors are constant, all mirrors, whether large or small, long focal length or short, will require the same exposure. Increasing the focal ratio will simply mean a larger picture. Increasing the mirror size at the same focal ratio would make no change whatsoever.
All other factors being the same, the diameter of the focogram will be directly proportional to the distance from the pinhole to the film. Exposures will vary as the square of this distance. If the pinhole image to film distance is left constant, the diameter of the image on the plate will be inversely proportional to the focal ratio of the mirror. That is, that of an f/4 would be twice as big as an f/8.
A Challenge of Miniscule Proportions
Albert Ingalls (adapted by Shawn Carlson )
An adventure in the unusual is the modern attempt to duplicate some of the tiny high-power eyepiece lenses made by the great Sir William Herschel (1738-1822). These were described in the Transactions of the Optical Society (London), Volume 26, by W. H. Stevenson of the mainly amateur British Astronomical Association.
Herschel's claims to have used powers between 1,000 and 6,000 on his telescopes once raised many an eyebrow. But a search of his equipment in the 1940's discovered nine eyepieces whose focal lengths and powers (on the telescope used by Herschel) vindicated his statements. Most were well-formed bi-convex lenses. Three of them, including the smallest, were found to be somewhat astigmatic, and in some cases there were signs of devitrification of the surfaces, but in general they gave sharp images in the micro-focometer used, and their focal lengths were quite readily measured.
In the image of the eyepiece shown below, what may look like the lens is the eye end of the eyepiece shell. On that shell is a raised nipple. On the tip of the nipple is a tiny dot, just visible in the original photo but just vanishing at screen resolution. That dot is the wee lens shown above, its diameter one third that of a pinhead.
No one is quite sure how these tiny lenses, the smallest of which is only 1/45-inch in diameter, were manufactured. Compared with this, the front lens of a 2 mm. oil-immersion objective is a large and clumsy object. It would be interesting to know exactly how a present-day optician would proceed, if required to make a duplicate of the most powerful of Herschel's eyepieces, fashioned in the 18th Century.
Herschel's trick eyepieces may have been made by him partly as a stunt. So thought his granddaughter, Constance A. Lubbock, editor of The Herschel Chronicle. Herschel was ever a case of "once an amateur always an amateur," which carries with it an incurable interest in stunts done purely for the fun of it. He probably wanted to see just how small a lens he could make, and probably as he made those described he chuckled, "I'll give 'em 180 years to beat me on these." We'll folks, time's up!
I must say, it annoys me no end that someone would do something so marvelous and then take the secret to his grave. So if this problem bites you, take on the challenge! I don't know what, but I'll find some suitable prize to reward whosoever demonstrates a method to duplicate Herschel's feet. To win, you must manufacture such a lens and tell us all how you did it. Shawn Carlson
Should SAS Publish Position Papers?
A few weeks ago I mentioned the work of amateur scientist Maureen Clemmons who suggests that ancient Egyptians may have used kites to raise obelisks and build pyramides. This started a discussion on the SAS Forum about what, if anything, SAS should do regarding amateur scientists who are skirt against scientific fringes. That has now raised another issue of whether or not SAS should be in the business of issuing position papers covering these and other other issues of importance to citizen scientists. And if we should, who should write them, and what procedure should we follow to keep the membership involved? You'll find my own proposal for this on the relevant Forum discussion.
I have proposed the following procedure to create a position paper for SAS.
1) Either a member who feels strongly about some issue writes a position paper and submits it to SAS for consideration or the Executive Director assigns a knowledgeable member to write the position paper. Any member can request a position paper to be drafted on any subject.
2) The paper is submitted to the Board of Directors for a broad assessment, is this something that SAS is willing to take a position on? If the Board agrees that the topic is within SAS's scope then...
3) The paper is posted unedited on the Web site for review and comment by the membership and an announcement is made in the E-Bulletin.
4) After a suitable comment period (two weeks?) the paper is be edited by the Executive Director to take into account the member's comments.
5) The paper is then submitted to the Board for a formal endorsement.
You can comment on this procedure or on the issue of position papers in general on the Forum discussion. Please let us all know what you think about this important issue. SC
SAS Photo Contest-- And the Winner Is...
The voting was extremely close! The winner pulled ahead by just two votes with four photos tied for second place. And the final two entrants were tied just two votes behind that. But the winner is...
the
450 mph sock photographed by Joseph DiVerdi.
Congratulations Joseph, you win a $50 shopping spree on the SAS On-Line Store and the admiration of your peers. (Joseph. Now, you will write a Lab Note to tell us all how you did this, right?)
And to the other contestants, you have my personal thanks for sharing your excellent work with me and the rest of the membership. I invite each all of the participants to write an Lab Note explaining their work. Those members who haven't seen them yet, please reward yourself by taking a moment to do so, and share your thoughts with their They are all really worth your time and admiration. And don't forget, since this one went so well we'll host another photo contest in September.
Now, let me exercise the Executive Director's privilege to point out my personal favorite.
I love this shot of soil bacteria by Ely Silk. The flagella, which are so clearly captured here, are quite difficult to photograph. Great work and Ely's method is a great tool to do real science. (Also, I hope to be discussed in an upcoming Lab Note.)
Member Feedback
Last week we ran an excellent Lab Note written by Donald Seibler describing how to measuring extremely long periods. That prompted Kevin Kilty to post the following important message to the SAS Forum It addresses a problem that comes up whenever one looks for a periodic signal-- the risk of spurious periodicities being created by sampling errors. This is something that every experimenter needs to understand thoroughly. I hope you'll enjoy this particularly lucid description of the problem.
Geophysical data and long period phenomena
The Lab Note contributed by Donald J Sieber presents a problem that we often face in the analysis of geophysical data in general. Because we often cannot plan experiments in geophysics, we are often faced with the analysis of observations. When nature provides the observations she does so without regard to our need to bring closure to an analysis. Geophysical data, data like river discharge records, ice sheet advances, temperature, humidity, and so forth, is dominated with 1/f signals (1/f or 1/frequency noise if you will), which means that no matter how long one observes a time series, there are always components of the signal with periods so long that they may resemble a secular trend and are not fully identified. The long term trend of CO2 levels, which Shawn has alluded to is one example, but there are many others as well. For example, there are daily variations in temperature, seasonal, yearly that all of us recognize well. In North America there is a tendency toward a 2 year period (cause unknown?), a 4-7 year period related possibly to El Nino/La Nina phenomena, a 20 year period possibly related to sunspots or to a basic oscillation in the winter-time low pressure system in the Gulf of Alaska, centennial and millennial variations related to oscillations in the ocean-atmosphere system. Over longer periods we can always find mechanisms that affect climate or temperature. Glacial epochs, orbital variations, etc. And even at the longest time scales imaginable there are episodes of mountain building, which tend to dry out the atmosphere and affect Earth temperature.
My approach to spectral analysis in these instances is to remove trends from the data before I make spectral estimates. In effect I have admitted that I have direct indications of cycles that are as long as 1-cycle per length of my data record or shorter, but no direct indication of longer cycles. These longer components may exist, but I cannot make any definitive statement about them. They may be cycles of practically any length or perhaps even secular trends, which are not cycles at all.
Donald Sieber has proposed a method which will allow a person to calculate spectral components that have longer periods than the duration of the data record. However, his method has to be applied with special care for two reasons. Let me illustrate each with examples below.
First, his method employs an arc cosine function to make its calculation. This function cannot contain arguments larger than 1 in magnitude. Therefore, if there is noise, or unaccounted for signals in the basic data that leave the argument with a larger magnitude, then how do we proceed? Do we throw out bad data? Do we revert to some sort of least squares analysis? My general feeling is that his proposal will always lead one to provide biased estimates of some parameters of the sine function he seeks. If one uses more data observations in order to get a handle on possible noise, then the resulting matrix equation (be it least squares or some other) may become very ill conditioned and thus highly susceptible to noise.
Second, if a person is planning to make an estimate from periodic samples of a signal, then that person MUST make certain that there are no short period cycles in the data that are aliased in the sampling process and which will look coincidentally like long period cycles. I have a very relevant example to illustrate this last point.
Suppose we make samples of temperature once per year to monitor global warming. (I know this sounds contrived, but the same problem appears no matter how frequently we sample.) Suppose that the true temperature signal is a sine wave, once per year, and that it never varies--absolutely constant Earth temperature except for the seasonal variation. We take a sample on June 30th on the first year, and by accident we take samples every 366 days instead of every 365. It should be obvious that we will be sampling a different place on the sine wave each year, and instead of getting a constant value each time, we will get a slightly higher value each year until we are sampling on or around the first of August (warmest yearly period in North America). Our measurements would look like a long term upward trend in temperature for the first 30 years or so, but if we continued long enough would go through a cycle each 365 years.
This may be a contrived example, but it certainly shows a serious problem involved in sampling; and a particularly serious one when a person tries to identify long period signals. It actually occurs in measuring Earth temperature for the simple reason that all of the elements of Earth's orbit do not fall exactly into the seasonal record of one year. For example, the anomalistic year, precession of the equinoxes, and so forth cause us to compare yearly cycles of temperature that are not equivalent. It is extremely difficult to "de-trend" data in this situation, and I have no doubt that this problem has confused some of our understanding of global warming.
Mr. Seiber has made an initial thrust at a problem that is quite complex and extremely interesting.
Kevin Kilty
You can read Donald Seiber's response to Kevin's comments on the Forum. And please add your comments to the Forum discussion. SC
Featured Products
SCHMERMUND TRIPLE POINT OF WATER CELL
This is the inexpensive alternative for producing the International Temperature Standard of 0.01 deg. C, which represents the temperature at which water exists in a condition of equilibrium with its liquid, solid, and vapor phases. The cell is sold as a kit so that the user can take advantage of a cheap way to possess the accuracy and reproducibility of a TPW cell and not worry about the shipping, handling, and storage of a sealed, all glass, fragile commercial unit costing $1,000 or more. The TPW kit is one in a series of instruments and standards that are designed to give maximum value for many analytical measurements and tests. These kits are simple to assemble and easy to use. This new approach to instrumentation is called MESOTECHNOLOGY. This kit contains the following:
The photo shows the assembled kit.
The aluminum stand is a convenient arrangement for both generating the TPW cell and safe storage when the cell is not in use. The wickless alcohol burner, when filled with denatured alcohol, is the preferred method for safe generation of the cell. The long stem funnel allows the use of liquid nitrogen for freezing the mantle. The stem reaches below the water line and eliminates the potential disaster of an ice bridge forming in that region. The risk of an ice bridge is inherent in ALL triple point of water cells. When an ice bridge forms, it can crack the cell. The use of this funnel also restricts the liquid nitrogen from rapidly boiling out of the well. The ice bath is used to hold the TPW cell after the mantle is generated. The gloves are for convenient handling of the TPW apparatus when it's being generated or frozen. The Ultra Pure Quad Distilled water included in the kit assures performance to within to within 0.0001 deg C of the TPW. The depth of the thermometer well in the cell is best for calibrating short thermometers such as liquid-in-glass types.
General specs: stand height 8 1/2", stand base 5" sq., flask dia. 2", length 6". Thermometer well I.D. 1/2", length 6" (approx. 3.5" in ice mantle zone). Temperature stability is better than 0.0001 deg. C for several days when cell is maintained in a proper ice bath.
Retail Price: $350 SAS Member Price: $309.95
They're here. Ultra-high strength rare-earth magnets. So powerful that they had a visible effect on my computer monitor from over two feet away. You can buy all you want at just 50 cents each (regular price is over $1) but we only have about 120 left so if you want to experiment with magnets that with a pole strength that's 10,000 stronger than the earth's, put your order in now. We sold hundreds of these little fellas last week so they ain't gonna last much longer.
NOTE: Some folks complained that the Web store charged them $20 for shipping their magnet orders. Don't worry, shipping is just a couple of bucks for any quantity ordered. Nancy adjusted the costs on all of the magnet orders. The problem should be solved but if it isn't go ahead the complete the transaction. We won't let the erroneous shipping charge go through.
BOOKS
Last week we featured five books from Lindsay Publishers. They just arrived and I've got to tell you about them...
The first was Wagner's Chemical Technology, 1872. Please don't buy this book. We only have one left and just have to have it! (OK, we'll reorder if we have to.) Don't think that it's obsolete because it first appeared in 1872. What worked back then works just as well today. I've never seen a text that is as complete in industrial techniques of inorganic chemistry. Absolutely fascinating. The book is hard bound with 745 pages in small type! Chocked full of information. You'll love it.
Blowpipe Analysis-- This book reveals secrets of an all but lost art. Today, when geologists need to identify a mineral they often send it to a lab for testing. But back in the old days, they would pull out an alcohol lamp and use a metal tube to blow air over the flame to oxygenate it and direct it onto the mineral. The oxygenated flame burns quite hot and is quite chemically active. By viewing the specimen through a few filters they were able to do a crude spectroscopic-type analysis and discover in seconds for free in the field what would today require days + costs. They used other tricks as well, by observing how the heated mineral reacted with a set of know reagents. This book reveals all the secrets. Blowpipe Analysis is a wonderful book for anyone who interested in hands-on geology, or who, like me, loves to learn charms of older but extremely useful technologies.
Prospector's Guidebook-- My grand daddy was an old-rock hound and this was one of his favorite books. So you'll understand why I was delighted to see it on Lindsay's publication list. Going through it for the first time in nearly 30 years I can finally see why my grandfather so enjoyed his dog-eared copy. First printed in 1901. If you've ever want to know how to old timers did it, well, here's how.
Since you all liked last week's selection so much, here are two more Books from Lindsay Publishing.
Advanced Machine Work by Robert H. Smith 800 pages heavily illustrated Retail: $30 SAS Member Price $22.50
Here's the best general machine shop book I've ever seen old or new. Smith brought out this book in 1915, updating it in 1925. That makes it new enough to still be of great value, but old enough to contain a many techniques that are no longer taught.
You get easy-to-read text, step-by-step instructions, and great illustrations. Modern books are prettier, but they cannot possibly do a better job of teaching.
"Advanced" covers everything you
can imagine from basic operation of a micrometer and vernier caliper,
to the testing of machine tools for accuracy. You'll learn the
different methods of turning tapers and their fitting, detailed
instructions on cutting threads, making bolts and nuts, face plates
and chucks, mounting work, turning flanges and pulleys, boring,
threading, cutting square threads bolts and nuts, cutting multiple
threads, knurling, and much more.
You'll learn about drilling jigs, eccentric turning, facing large cylinders, use of steadies and followers, external and internal grinding, and the grinding of piston rings, milling cutters, reamers, and more.
Chapter nine covers planers and their use. Learn to plane keyways, lathe beds, vises, and more.
In learning to use a milling machine you'll groove taps, flute reamers, mill T-slots in a circular table and more.
And there's so much more on everything from gear cutting to making mandrels, taps, twist drills, using indicators, sine bars and more. You'll learn how to make expensive tools that you now buy. You'll even learn how to check the accuracy of lathes, milling machines, drill presses, and lead screws, and even use of optical flats to measure to millionths of an inch!
Just about everything you can imagine in amazing detail. This baby delivers! A bargain! Worth twice the price. I recommend it highly. People rave about it! Order yourself a copy today! Lindsay.
by L. H. Martin and R.D. Hill
Paper back: 120 pages.
Retail: $12.00 SAS Member Price $8.95
If you have any interest in vacuum work, then this is a fabulous reference. I've owned a copy for several years and I refer to it frequently when I need to dip into vacuum tips. Written by two experimental physicists who wanted to give workers in the field the best practical how-to information about working with vacuums. Highly recommended! Sorry I don't have a picture this time. But for under $9, how can you go wrong? Shawn
Perterson First Guide to
the Solar System
by Jay M. Pasachoff and Wil Tirion (Illustrator)
Paper back, Illustrations : 100 color photographs.
List Price : $6.00 SAS Member Price:
$4.76
The first book the beginning astronomer needs, whether young or
old. First Guides are simplified versions of the full-size guides,
they make it easy to get started in the field.
Budding astronomers--backyard or armchair--will
learn not only where to look for the planets in the nighttime
sky but also how space missions to the planets and their moons
have increased our understanding of Earth, its atmosphere, and
the moon. More than 100 spectacular color photographs, including
views from the Hubble Space Telescope of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn,
as well as the latest Voyager photographs of Neptune. The latest
scientific information on other solar systems and extraterrestrial
life, charts showing where to find the planets in the night sky,
and much more.
Peterson Field Guild to
the Atmosphere
By Vincent J. Schaefer
Paper Back
List Price : $20.00 SAS Member Price: $15.00
Clouds * Rain * Snow * Storms.
What more can you say? No one who reads
this book will ever experience an outdoor stroll in quite the
same way again.
How to Know the Insects
By: Bland, R. G. &. H. E. Jaques
Spiral bound; 409 pages, with 73 illustrations.
List Price: $32.50 SAS Member Price: $29.25
If you want to put together an insect collection, this is the book for you! A complete handbook for insect study and identification, with directions for collecting and mounting insects. Natural history data, basic biology, and characteristics used to identify immature insects accompany pictured keys for 29 orders and most common families. Describes selected common species or genera in most families.
I bought this book in when I was in graduate
school because I needed an enjoyable diversion from physics. And
now I'm hooked on the little buggers. In fact, you should see
the size of the dobsonfly outside my office doorway. Wow... almost
as large as my hand! Bugs here in New England are even more interesting
than those in California. But I digress... If you're interested
in knowing the insects in a serious way, this is definitely the
book for you.
SAS News
Free Web Space for SAS Local Chapters
AT&T is offering all of SAS's local chapters free web space. So if your chapter is paying for it's service, here's a great way to save some money. You'll have complete autonomy over what services your Web pages provide. The only difference is that now, it's free. We how to get everything set up this coming week. If you local group Web masters don't hear from me in the interim, then look for another announcement in the next E-Bulletin.
Update: Amateur Scientist Workshop
I just got the demo tape and, I must say, it's pretty good. I think that anyone who looks at it will walk away with a good idea of what we're trying to do for science education. Elizabeth Rollins and Sasha Ferrer did a fabulous job supervising the edit and developing the press materials. Tip of my hat to ya ladies. Elizabeth was in Washington DC two week sand met with National Science Foundation (for money), the Smithsonian Institution (for talent), the Discovery Channel (for distribution) and also the American Association of Community Colleges (for community outreach). She's given me a full report on all her conferences and I'm so excited about the project. At this phase things just couldn't look much better. On Monday, copies of the tape will be on their way to a few supporters, especially Jeff Kodosky (who reads these messages. Hi Jeff.) as the Kodosky Foundation pitched in over half of the demo's production costs. We may make the demo available to the membership to, but I have to negotiate if and how with my partners. More later.
New Local Chapter Coordinator
Great news! One of the most active and capable people to ever volunteer for SAS is Joseph DiVerdi (yes, the fellow who shoots socks from potato cannons) has agreed to become our official coordinator of the local chapters. Joseph will complete the development of some how-to materials started by SAS member Charles Burgess, and work directly with local chapters to help them start up and also expand and be more successful. This is a critical role and I'm so glad that Joseph has agreed to take it on. We're going to start him off slowly but I'm confident that with Joseph at the helm we'll be able to do much more to support the work of our local chapters.
Update: Electrodag
The folks who see the electrodag can give us a good price, but they insist that we have to purchase at least $500 of the stuff. I'm trying to get around the minimum order requirement. Sorry to everyone who's waiting for the stuff. I'll keep you posted as to the outcome of the struggle.
Update: Chemical Supplies
Thanks to everyone who's started purchasing chemicals through SAS. We're off to a great start and we've successfully reestablished our relationship with our chemical supplier. But to keep that relationship, we need you to let us get you the chemicals you need. Remember, you can get virtually any chemicals you need by contacting Nancy and letting her know what you want.
Another Project for Citizen Scientists
Gamma Ray Bursts
Got a telescope, a good observing site and some time on your hands? The American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO) has created a network of ground based observers who assist NASA at doing rapid follow-up observations of the so-called Gamma Ray Burst events-- rare and extremely powerful explosions that are too fleeting to observe using conventional astronomy communication channels. I described this work in an article you'll find here. You can check out their discussion of their program at http://www.aavso.org/grb/presentation/welcome.stm