OliviaMcQ

Has anyone else made one of these? I made one a little while ago using the instructions from a book called Bacteria: A Field Guide by Betsey Dexter Dyer, and so far its looking pretty cool. I put in things like a slice of baked potato, coffee grounds, oats, apple cider vinegar, pennies, dead leaves, and a couple of other items. I topped it all off with sand from the beach and seawater. I'm having difficulty trying to figure out where to store the thing though. I want it to stay relatively warm and completely exposed to light, but cant figure out where in my house I could do that. Any advice?

I mixed some baby powder (2 tsp) and some water (1 oz) together and microwaved it just to see what would happen and it came out chunky and gelatinous. Did I make some crude form of gelatin or was it something else? The baby powder says it is made up of corn starch, tricalcium phosphate, and some added lavender/chamomile fragrance stuff. I think I just made some really nasty gelatin, but I'm not sure. (sorry about the units, but I'm working with kitchen utensils and am too lazy to convert them. )

In a perfect world, both. BUT, a microscope is a little more accessible if you are a complete beginner when it comes to astronomy. You can look at lots of different things with a microscope, way more than skin and hair cells. You can take samples from the dumpster and see what shows up, look at plant and food samples, skin cells from pets, the list goes on... Hmph. Now I want a microscope.

I agree with Mokele. I assume that from high school, science only gets more complex and time consuming. It sounds to me like you don't really realize that to perform relevant and useful experiments, you have to have a strong background in the butt-in-chair aspects of what you are investigating. My suggestion is to explore your interests, study and experiment on your own, and see if science is something that you really want to do. If you find that no, it isn't really something you are willing to devote yourself to, you have other options. The only thing you shouldn't do is eliminate opportunities by taking the "easy" route in your last year of high school. That's probably your biggest mistake right there. Also, was it just me or was there very little astrophysics/astronomy in Knowing? From what I saw, it was a little bit of cryptography and a lot of sitting around moping and drinking. And carnage.

On a similar note, has anyone been born without an appendix yet? A healthy baby, of course, just minus an appendix? Also, do you think we would evolve out of our appendixes? Would it be beneficial? Does anyone think that maybe someday we might need them again? Just wondering.

I found this neat thing on google about Astronomical Photometry that addresses the absorption and re-emission of photons by atmospheric molecules. To quote them directly: "Absorption of radiant energy by an atmospheric molecule is a destructive process: a photon is annihilated, and its energy is transferred to the absorbing molecule, which undergoes a transition from a lower to a higher state of energy. Absorption may lead to subsequent emission. It may also lead to destruction of the molecule." From Astronomical photometry By Christiaan Sterken, J. Manfroid Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=ojzepXhy9DIC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=absorption+of+light+by+atmospheric+molecules&source=bl&ots=iF0Ez5MSxh&sig=vK1e7YTUC0vzw21nrW69QbbhnoQ&hl=en&ei=VQdwSpm5JJOesgOox5z8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 Sorry for the huge ugly link, but the preview looks pretty cool.

Since I am not anywhere near an expert at any of this, I could be wrong. If I am wrong, I would love to be corrected. I would think that the absorption and re-emission of light would be more of a starting/stopping thing than an actual slowing down. When the light gets absorbed it gets absorbed at 300,000,000 meters per second. I would imagine that when it gets re-emitted it gets re-emitted at 300,000,000 meters per second as well. It doesn't get slowed down so much as it gets stopped altogether and started again, at the same speed at which it was absorbed. The light itself doesn't get slowed down, but the process of absorbing and re-emitting it just takes more time, causing an apparent "slowing" of the speed of light. o.O? I think this is basically what Cap'n Refsmmat said, only more wordy.

Does anyone here have any idea why alcohol (lets say isopropyl alcohol, the kind used for cleaning) is really ineffective when it comes to cleaning up dried blood? I know hydrogen peroxide and bleach are the best things for cleaning up messes of that nature, I was just wondering why alcohol was so terrible at it and what the science is behind it. Any ideas? (also, sorry if this thread is in the wrong spot.)

Could you be more specific? I dont quite understand what you're asking for.

This book is probably the coolest book ever. I have my copy, but sadly I do not have permission to build my own chemistry lab. Does anyone else have this book? What do you think of it?

Did you clean it at all? And just out of curiosity, why didn't you pull the splinter out?

Ill look for a paid internship...There are lots of labs and research facilities in San Diego, lucky me!