Archive for September, 2007

“He made no pretense of skill”

Friday, September 21st, 2007

ba_asg09_pitchingscience_ph005.jpgWe chose Martin to participate because he was the closest we could find to Absolute Zero in terms of pitching ability. He made no pretense of skill. He held the baseball as if it were radioactive.

“You don’t get these things in Europe,” he said. “I wouldn’t know where to get one.”

Martin even insisted on dropping the baseball to the floor during one idle moment, just so he could kick it around like a soccer midfielder. “That’s what you’re supposed to do with a ball,” he said.

His first attempts at American-style pitching were predictably pathetic.

“He throws like a European,” Shore said, keeping score on the sidelines. “No lower body.”

Snyder’s “before” shots documented Martin’s awkward motions as the blinking lights on the ball traced a remarkably slow path.

“He’s invented a new pitch — the German change-up,” Barker said. “The ball never gets there. You can’t hit a pitch that never arrives.”

So writes Carl T. Hall in the July 9, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle, which also features a short video of Sebastian Martin attempting to throw several baseballs.

(Thanks to investigator Mark Schreiber for bringing this to our attention.)

Knees: Passive value

Thursday, September 20th, 2007

McGeerDiagrams_200w.jpgTad McGeer proved that you don’t need knees to walk downhill. But he also proved that downhill walking is nicer with knees.

He further proved that you don’t need a brain if all you want to do is walk down a slope. Nor do you need much else. Just a pair of legs - call them stand-alone legs, if you like - will do it.

McGeer proved these things mathematically. Then he proved them in a way that non-mathematicians seem to find more persuasive….

So begins this week’s Improbable Research column in The Guardian.

Is the world flat, then?

Wednesday, September 19th, 2007

WorldFlat_200w.jpgScientists, it is said, never take any assumption for granted. A panel of amateur scientists on the American TV program “The View” debated two such assumptions. Click on the image to see and hear video. Here is a transcript covering one of the two questions (the video clip covers both questions):

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Is the world flat?

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Is the world flat? (laughter)

GOLDBERG: Yes.

SHEPHERD: ?I Don?t know.

GOLDBERG: What do you think?

SHEPHERD: I? I never thought about it, Whoopi. Is the world flat? I never thought about it.

BARBARA WALTERS: You?ve never thought about whether the world was round or flat?

SHEPHERD: I tell you what I?ve thought about. How I?m going to feed my child?

WALTERS: Well you can do both.

SHEPERD: ?how I?m going to take care of my family. The world, is the world flat has never entered into, like that has not been an important thing to me.

ELIZABETH HASSELBECK: You?ll teach your son, Jeffery, right?

SHEPHERD: If my son, Jeffery, asks me ?is the world flat,? I guess I would go?

JOY BEHAR: You know, didn?t some person already work this question out? I mean, why are we doing this again? (laughter, applause)

(Thanks to The Daily Background for bringing this to our attention.)

Dan McCune joins LFHCfS

Wednesday, September 19th, 2007

DanMcCune_Hair.jpgDan McCune has joined the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists. He says:

My qualifications include 1) having luxuriant hair, usually flowing, and 2) I am an adrenergic pharmacologist who has investigated receptor binding and cellular signal transduction beyond the point that any sane individual would wish to do so. I (and my hair) received a Ph.D. in Pharmacology from the University of Kentucky. Subsequently we completed post-doctoral work at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Department of Molecular Cardiology. My hair and I are currently employed in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nesbit School of Pharmacy at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Dan F. McCune, Ph.D., LFHCfS
Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences
Nesbitt School of Pharmacy
Wilkes University
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, USA

The bang-free bomb and the bomb-free bang

Tuesday, September 18th, 2007

8061.jpgAnother of BAE’s ideas is what has been described as a “bang-free bomb”.

In fact, although the explosion is quieter, the bomb has been re-engineered so the risk to the user of exposure to the bomb’s fumes is reduced.

“This is to ensure they are safe to use, that they only go off when they are supposed to go off, and that they do the minimum of collateral damage,” said Ms Allen.

So says an October 26, 2006 BBC report about arms manufacturer British Aerospace Systems (aka BAE, aka BAE Systems), which calls itself “the premier global defence and aerospace company”.

The report does not say how or whether the bang-free bomb relates to the bomb-free bang. The bang was the subject of the 2000 Ig Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to:

The British Royal Navy, for ordering its sailors to stop using live cannon shells, and to instead just shout “Bang!”

(Thanks to investigator Scott Langill for bringing this to our attention.)

PS. Of course some don’t say “bang,” but refer to it only indirectly. Tom Lehrer, for one, is a noted master of indirect indication.