Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published on 12 Apr 2019More from Matt & Ilya on “That Works”: https://bit.ly/2D0A6qk
More about steel from Shadiversity:
— “When Was Steel Invented” https://bit.ly/2uSwcvh
— “The Riddle of Steel” https://bit.ly/2G6TB28
— “The Oldest Steel Sword” https://bit.ly/2VvWVZZCORRECTION from 12:10 — The back of a Katana after differential hardening process is a lower-carbon STEEL, but it is still Steel rather than Iron. My mistake. The higher-carbon content Martensite forms the cutting edge, and low-carbon steel forms the spine.
BLUE’S BOOK: Philosophicalphridays.com
PATREON: https://www.Patreon.com/OSP
April 13, 2019
April 5, 2019
QotD: Debunking the “MSG is harmful” myth
The story of MSG is a true tragedy. The negativity associated with this delicious amino acid is due to a spurious study from 1968 that linked MSG with the “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome.” This study connected that gut-bomb feeling you sometimes get after eating Chinese food to MSG, despite the fact that the typically cheap Chinese food prepared in American restaurants is fatty and served in large portions, and (like any restaurant), the food can be spoiled. My mom theorizes that lots of MSG was used to cover up the fact that, say, shrimp was a day past its prime, and that the sick feeling was due to the food but got blamed on the MSG. There’s never been a scientifically rigorous study that’s linked MSG with any negative effects. MSG should be used frequently and added to anything that needs the flavor drawn out, especially soups. But it enhances virtually anything it touches: Once, eating pizza at home, a friend scanned my spice rack and saw a jar with white powder whose label, in my grandfather’s messy scrawl, read what looked like “MS6.” He sprinkled it on his pizza and came to find me, telling me that whatever MS6 was, it was the most amazing thing he’d ever tasted. Yes, MSG makes even pizza better.
Caitlin PenzeyMoog, “Salt grinders are bullshit, and other lessons from growing up in the spice trade”, The A.V. Club, 2017-04-06.
Comments Off on QotD: Debunking the “MSG is harmful” myth
March 1, 2019
Theodore Dalrymple on Michel Houellebecq: “Houellebecq runs an abattoir for sacred cows”
At the New English Review:
Not reading many contemporary French novels, I am not entitled to say that Michel Houellebecq is the most interesting French novelist writing today, but he is certainly very brilliant, if in a somewhat limited way. His beam is narrow but very penetrating, like that of a laser, and his theme an important, indeed a vital one: namely the vacuity of modern life in the West, its lack of transcendence, lived as it is increasingly without religious or political belief, without a worthwhile creative culture, often without deep personal attachments, and without even a struggle for survival. Into what Salman Rushdie (a much lesser writer than Houellebecq) called “a God-shaped hole” has rushed the search for sensual pleasure which, however, no more than distracts for a short while.
Something more is needed, but Western man — at least Western man at a certain level of education, intelligence and material ease — has not found it. Houellebecq’s underlying nihilism implies that it is not there to be found. The result of this lack of transcendent purpose is self-destruction not merely on a personal, but on a population, scale. Technical sophistication has been accompanied, or so it often seems, by mass incompetence in the art of living. Houellebecq is the prophet, the chronicler, of this incompetence.Even the ironic title of his latest novel, Sérotonine, is testimony to the brilliance of his diagnostic powers and his capacity to capture in a single word the civilizational malaise which is his unique subject. Serotonin, as by now every self-obsessed member of the middle classes must know, is a chemical in the brain that acts as a neurotransmitter to which is ascribed powers formerly ascribed to the Holy Ghost. All forms of undesired conduct or feeling are caused by a deficit or surplus or malalignment of this chemical, so that in essence all human problems become ones of neurochemistry.
On this view, unhappiness is a technical problem for the doctor to solve rather than a cause for reflection and perhaps even for adjustment to the way one lives. I don’t know whether in France the word malheureux has been almost completely replaced by the word déprimée, but in English unhappy has almost been replaced by depressed. In my last years of medical practice, I must have encountered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of depressed people, or those who called themselves such, but the only unhappy person I met was a prisoner who wanted to be moved to another prison, no doubt for reasons of safety.
Houellebecq’s one-word title captures this phenomenon (a semantic shift as a handmaiden to medicalisation) with a concision rarely equalled. And indeed, he has remarkably sensitive antennae to the zeitgeist in general, though it must be admitted that he is most sensitive to those aspects of it that are absurd, unpleasant, or dispiriting rather than to any that are positive.
Comments Off on Theodore Dalrymple on Michel Houellebecq: “Houellebecq runs an abattoir for sacred cows”
February 25, 2019
QotD: Defining mineral reserves
The European chemists organisation – EuChemS – has just added to the torrent of environmental drivel with their new periodic table. They’re trying to tell us which elements are going to run out when and thus tell us all that we’ve got to recycle. The entire process is bunkum because they’ve not understood the first thing about the supply of minerals. They simply do not know the meaning of mineral reserve that is.
Just for the edification of anyone who does drool when contemplating their own nasal effluvia – you know, a member of Greenpeace, that sort of person – a mineral reserve is something we’ve proven, yes proven, that we can extract from using today’s technology, at today’s prices, and make a profit. It costs a lot of money to prove these facts. Thus we only prove for what we’re likely to use in the next few decades. Mineral reserves are, to a reasonable level of accuracy, just the working stock of current mines.
There is no relationship, no relationship at all, between our mineral reserves and how much of that element or mineral is available to us to use. Really do grasp this point. It’s not that the amount is larger. It’s not that the multiple is high. It’s that there is no relationship at all. There are, for example, absolutely no mineral reserves of hafnium anywhere on the planet. Nothing, absolutely nada. At current rates of usage we might run out some few billion years after the Sun goes Red Giant. The European Chemical Society tries to tell us that there’s a serious risk of running short of Hafnium in the next 100 years. This is so gibberingly stupid that it would get a laugh from German geologists – I know because I told some this once and they giggled. Seriously, German – German – geologists, giggling.
Tim Worstall, “More Environmental Drivel With New Periodic Table – We’re Going To Run Out Of Helium”, Continental Telegraph, 2019-01-23.
Comments Off on QotD: Defining mineral reserves
October 28, 2018
The actual science behind the “leaves on the line” excuse for late trains
While it doesn’t explain the “wrong type of snow” excuse also deployed by announcers when Britain’s trains run inexplicably slow in winter, here’s the scientific facts about the “leaves on the line” excuse:
Autumn is here, and for most of us, it’s a time of beauty as the leaves cascade through an array of hues before pirouetting down from the trees. If you have to travel by train, however, you might tire of ‘leaves on the line’ being the supposed cause of train delays. It turns out to be more than just a flimsy excuse – and particular chemical reactions are partly to blame.
We’ve previously looked at the chemical cause of the colours of autumn leaves. By the time they make their descent from trees to the ground, most of these colours have passed. What remains is a brown husk, mainly made up of cellulose. Cellulose is the biological polymer that is the main component of plant cell walls.
Once leaves have fallen from trees, they simply decompose over time. Their presence isn’t usually a problem until it comes to the train network. When leaves fall on train lines, they can reduce the grip between the train wheels and the track. This, in turn, can lead to longer braking distances for trains. By disrupting the contact between the train wheels and the track, the leaves also prevent signalling equipment detecting trains. This can then cause train delays.
What makes leaves affect train tracks in this way? Scientists have a few suggestions, and it’s likely that they all contribute to the problem to some extent.
Comments Off on The actual science behind the “leaves on the line” excuse for late trains
May 29, 2018
“[T]here’s just no way that we’re going to get to fentanyl harm reduction without [legalization]”
Tim Worstall reports on a recent Nebraska drug bust involving enough fentanyl “to kill 26 million people” (that is, about 120 lbs of the stuff) and explains why the current enforcement regime is going to have to change:
Now, I’m in favour of all of these drugs being legalised anyway. It’s the idiot’s body, up to them what they ingest in whatever manner. If it kills them, well, their choice. The argument that they shouldn’t therefore we must prevent them doesn’t cut much ice with me.
But put that aside and think in a utilitarian manner. If we can prevent overdoses and wasted lives then we should. But only if how we’re going to do it is better than the results of either not doing so or even using some other manner of dealing with the problem.
It’s arguable that clamping down on certain illegal drugs does at least limit their penetration of the market. I don’t think this is true of heroin but perhaps it is potentially true. It’s absolutely not true of fentanyl. For that’s a synthetic opioid. A decent chemist can synthesise it – a good one can make the precursors as well. There is no need to get opium, morphine or any other poppy related product that we already control.
It’s also, as we can see, alarmingly cheap already. Easy to smuggle in vast quantities of doses.
There’s another problem with it. The difference between a dose that gives a high and one that kills is pretty narrow. And it’s an extremely potent drug as well. Quantities for either are small – smaller than can generally be measured by users with candles and teaspoons.
It’s cheap, easy enough to make, has no precursors we can control, kills easily enough and dosage is alarmingly difficult to get right. So, what do we do?
We’re not going to get rid of it for all of the above reasons. So, we need to do damage limitation. Stopping people from dying from it sounds like a pretty good idea actually. And that means that we need it to be pure and in known dosages. That is, we need it to be legal.
I think all drugs should be legal, hey, your body and all that. But even if you think that harm reduction is a more important goal there’s just no way that we’re going to get to fentanyl harm reduction without legality of it. For that’s the only way we will get it in known doses which don’t kill people. And we’re most assuredly going to keep getting it even if we don’t legalise it. Our choices are people tooting on illegal fentanyl and dying or people tooting on legal fentayl and not dying. Not such a toughie that question, is it?
Comments Off on “[T]here’s just no way that we’re going to get to fentanyl harm reduction without [legalization]”
May 9, 2018
What Makes Spicy Foods Spicy | Earth Lab
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 24 Aug 2017Greg Foot explains why some food is spicy!
Comments Off on What Makes Spicy Foods Spicy | Earth Lab
April 27, 2018
What is fire? | James May Q&A (Ep36) | Head Squeeze
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 30 Aug 2013Discover the scientific nature of fire with James May in this Head squeeze video Q&A.
Fire, pretty essential really and something we often take for granted, but what exactly is it? Well to create fire you need three things – some fuel, a heat source and oxygen. If we remove any one of these, then the fire will go out. When we apply sufficient heat to the fuel for it to reach its ignition point, the material will combust in the presence of oxygen.
Combustion is actually the process by which the fuel decomposes, its molecules breaking down, releasing and recombining with the oxygen to produce water, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and all sorts of other things.
The flames which we see are composed of incandescent soot, this is not fire, as ethanol for example, can produce fire without visible flames. Incandescence increases with temperature and so we can estimate the heat of the flames moving from red, through orange, to the hottest of all – white heat.
There’s much more to fire than this and James May explains all in this fantastic head squeeze video. If you enjoyed it as much as we did subscribe for more, like, share and give us your thoughts in the lively comments below.
To find out exactly how things burn check out Fran Scott’s Live Experiment: http://youtu.be/PKtfh8aHXQo
Comments Off on What is fire? | James May Q&A (Ep36) | Head Squeeze
February 12, 2018
Is glass really made from sand? – James May’s Q&A (Ep 11) – Head Squeeze
BBC Earth Lab
Published on 14 Mar 2013James May delves into what glass is actually made from. Is it really made from sand?
Comments Off on Is glass really made from sand? – James May’s Q&A (Ep 11) – Head Squeeze
November 8, 2017
Why Don’t Country Flags Use The Color Purple?
After Skool
Published on 17 Oct 2017For centuries purple dye was worth more than gold. The dye used to produce purple fabric came from a sea snail that only lived off the shores of modern day Lebanon. Because it was so rare, purple became associated with royalty. This is the reason you don’t see purple on country flags. It was just too expensive to produce.
Sometimes the simplest questions have extraordinary answers.
Comments Off on Why Don’t Country Flags Use The Color Purple?
October 24, 2017
Why Women Fainted So Much in the 19th Century
Today I Found Out
Published on 8 Oct 2016In this video:
Dropping like flies (or at least as far as many stories indicate), it seems as if well-bred ladies in the 1800s struggled to maintain consciousness when faced with even the slightest emotional or physical shock. Over the years there have been several theories as to why this seemed to happen, from the women’s garb to simply conforming to societal expectations.
Want the text version?: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/05/women-fainted-much-19th-century/
Comments Off on Why Women Fainted So Much in the 19th Century
August 23, 2017
Playing with fire – James May Q&A Extras (Ep36) – Head Squeeze
Published on 30 Aug 2013
James May reminisces about his misspent youth playing with matches and debates the merits of using foam to put out flames from petrol.
Comments Off on Playing with fire – James May Q&A Extras (Ep36) – Head Squeeze
July 26, 2017
What Kind of Finish Should You Use? | WOOD FINISHING BASICS
Published on 24 Feb 2017
Don’t be intimidated! Wood finishing is simple and easy. This video will get you started with the basics.
Comments Off on What Kind of Finish Should You Use? | WOOD FINISHING BASICS
July 20, 2017
July 17, 2017
Debunking some myths about sulfites in wine
By way of Scientific American, here’s a bit of clarity from Monica Reinagel about the issue of sulfites in both red and white wine and what relationship it has to wine headaches:
Myth #1: Organic or bio-dynamic wines are sulfite free.
In order to be certified organic, a wine must not contain added sulfites. However, sulfites are produced naturally during the fermentation process as a by-product of yeast metabolism. Even though no sulfites are added, organic wine may contain between 10-40 ppm sulfites.
You may also see wines labeled as being made from organic grapes, which is not the same as organic wine. Wine made from organic grapes may contain up to 100 ppm sulfites.
If you do get a hold of wine made without sulfites, I don’t suggest keeping it in the cellar very long. Wine made without sulfites—especially white wine — is much more prone to oxidation and spoilage.
Myth #2: Red wine is higher in sulfites than white wine
Ironically, the exact opposite is likely to be true. Red wines tend to be higher in tannins than white wines. Tannins are polyphenols found in the skins, seeds, and stems of the grapes. They also act as antioxidants and preservatives so less sulfite is needed.
In fact, while European regulations allow up to 210 ppm sulfites in white wine, the limit for red wine is only 160 ppm.
Other factors that affect how much sulfite is needed are the residual sugar and the acidity of the wine. Dryer wines with more acid will tend to be lower in sulfites. Sweet wines and dessert wines, on the other hand, tend to be quite high in sulfites.
Myth #3: Sulfites in wine cause headaches
The so-called “red wine headache” is definitely a real thing. But it’s probably not due to sulfites. For one thing, white wine is higher in sulfites than red wine but less likely to cause a headache. That suggests that it’s probably something else in red wine that’s responsible for the notorious red wine headache. Other candidates include histamines, tyramine, tannins, not to mention the alcohol itself!
Comments Off on Debunking some myths about sulfites in wine
