Category: design Page 2 of 3

Hypergolic

On Fri September 21, 2012

In definitions, design, science, transportation

Hypergolic Capable of spontaneous inflammation on contact; hypergolic propellants are useful for spacecraft propulsion. An example is the mixture of dinitrogen tetroxide, N₂O₄, and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, (CH₃)₂NNH₂, which was used by Apollo astronauts to leave the Moon’s surface.

The New Penguin Dictionary of Science, M.J. Clugston, 1998

I certainly didn’t conceive of a fuel/oxidizer combination that would spontaneously ignite, but what a great idea! The folks planning the lunar landings couldn’t have felt comfortable with the astronauts on the surface relying on a single engine to get them back to the command module. If anything went wrong with that engine, the astronauts on the surface would stay there for the rest of their very short lives. The lunar module did end up using only one engine, but it’s dead-simple. Ignition requires only opening the valves to the oxidizer and fuel tanks. The two liquids flow to the rocket engine, come into contact, and spontaneously ignite. There’s no ignition system to fail. It’s elegant in its simplicity.

On the downside, this particular bipropellant combination is very toxic with dinitrogen tetroxide being corrosive and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine a carcinogen that the skin easily absorbs. Every rose has its prickles.

Bridgebusting!

by Rick

On Mon July 30, 2012

In architecture, celebrities, design, food and drink

The local morning radio show on CBC Radio One includes a weekly segment called World in One City. Each week, they visit the home of a local resident who cooks a meal from their country of birth (or their parents or grandparents’ country of birth). I find it more interesting for the stories the residents tell, than the food itself.

This morning, the focus was on Don Westwood. He is originally from England, and with the Olympics now in London, the media is looking for excuses to focus on that city.

I couldn’t shake the feeling that Westwood sounded familiar. I assumed it was because his accent is very similar to Michael Cain’s. Then it struck me after I got to work and remembered that he also taught architecture for 30 years at Carleton University here in town. Westwood had a series on TVO called The Science of Architecture, and I believe the parenthetical subtitle was Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down. I enjoyed the series but that isn’t what I remember most.

Every year, one of the projects he assigned his architecture students was the construction a of a model bridge. It had to span a 75 cm gap and the acceptable construction materials were very limited: balsa wood and cotton thread. No glue, nails, or screws! Westwood and the bridge builder would test the span by loading bricks upon it until the structure failed. The best part was that this testing phase aired on the local community cable channel. It was surprisingly entertaining.

As Neil Fraser, a former student of Westwood’s, and a bridgebusting participant, wrote in a blog post from a few years ago,

Banning glue results in structures that bend and twist as loads are applied, not structures that simply shatter when the epoxy fails. … the commentary and slow motion analysis is key to unlocking the lessons that each bridge tells. This event isn’t just a demolition, it is truly educational.

I recall that they would diagnose and discuss exactly how each structure failed using slow-motion footage of the moment the structure failed catastrophically. I don’t know how I ever stumbled onto the broadcasts, but I watched them for a several years and always looked forward to the next airing. It was popular enough that you can find VHS recordings of the show transferred to YouTube.

I eventually lost track of the yearly event, but I have very fond memories of Bridgebusting. Westwood was a remarkably dynamic and engrossing speaker. He retired sometime around 2001.

He was the man making Cottage Pie on the radio this morning!

Blue line

by Rick

On Sat February 27, 2010

In design, food and drink, marketing, photography, sports

Even when I was very young, I had an eye for clever ads. This one still amuses me:

I can’t be sure of when the ad appeared, but it was sometime between 1978 and 1982. I used to go to the local Tier I Junior “A” team’s games from time to time and this ad was in the program.

I can set those boundaries with confidence. It was no earlier than 1978 because the article on the back is about the league’s player of the year awards and it lists the winners from 1975 to 1978. The article may or may not have continued past the page I have. If it did, further years may have been listed. I had originally set 1986 as the latest it could have been because that’s when the ‘stubby’ beer bottle stopped being used in Canada. I was able to pull the end-date back because the local team moved to North Bay in 1982 so I couldn’t have gone to see them any later.

Doesn’t the ad lack any hint of slickness? It’s a photo and plain lettering. But the photo! Yeesh! Although I love the concept, the colour balance needs adjustment. It looks like it was shot with daylight film because fluorescent lights typically produce a blue or green cast, as you see in the ad. And come on, the image is really crooked!

Still, I like it and it brings back fond memories.

Ad copyright the Labatt Brewing Company. At least I figure it must be.

Button genocide

by Rick

On Thu December 3, 2009

In design, electronics, gear

In the article, “The Touchscreen DSLR is Upon Us,” Gizmodo reports,

So, this finally happened: Canon, or possibly a four-year-old with a mild passion for drawing, has filed for a patent on a touchscreen DSLR, which transfers common controls to the camera’s LCD screen. The button genocide is real, people.

The comment about the four-year-old was clearly spawned by the graphic included in the patent:

My favourite part is what appear to be dirt marks in the image. It looks like it was scanned, but the drawing was clearly done on a computer. You’d think that Canon, with all those cameras and scanners, might do better.

But I digress.

I have no doubt that these touch-screen DSLRs are on the way. Despite the cost of the touch screen itself, I bet they’ll be cheaper to make. I also suspect they’ll appear on entry-level models only. Why?

When you’re in a rush, a button is faster than a touch screen. When you’re operating purely by feel, a button works while a touch screen is useless.

More than a few times, I’ve been waiting for an event to occur with my eye on the viewfinder. I’ve changed the aperture and shutter speed with a flick of my thumb or forefinger, respectively. I’ve changed the ISO by pressing the middle of three buttons on the camera’s top panel and then rotating the thumb-wheel to set the desired value. I can change the focus point by pressing the thumb-stick in the desired direction. This list goes on and on. All of these changes can be made simply and easily with your eye to the viewfinder. Moving to a touch screen will entirely remove this ability because you’d have to take the camera away from your face to make any changes. Whoops, your sexy touch screen caused you to miss the moment, so sorry.

It may come to midrange and higher end DSLRs eventually, but not with the touch screens we have now. A complete lack of tactile feedback and placing the screen where it can’t be manipulated when you’re using the camera makes the idea a non-starter.

Hat tip: Gizmodo.

Crash!

by Rick

On Tue September 29, 2009

In design, transportation

To celebrate to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the organization crashed two cars. This was no ordinary crash, however. They took a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, and after strapping in the crash-test dummies, they wrecked the cars against each other in a 65 km/h (40 mph) frontal offset crash test. Check it out:

You can begin to see how the two cars were damaged. What surprised me the most is how the Bel Air fared. I thought those old cars were more solid. I expected the Bel Air to sustain less visible damage. The Malibu would absorb the impact, using the crush-zones designed for this purpose, absorbing the energy of the collision. This would save the driver from experiencing it.

Looking at the Malibu, you can see that this is what happened. The car is indeed a write-off, but the majority of the impact damage is in front of the firewall. The passenger compartment is completely intact. The dummy looks just fine.

Now looking at the Bel Air, we see a different story.

The dummy is looking like he’s got some rehab to look forward to with the way his legs are crushed. Goodness knows where the engine went. It was either pushed completely to the side, or the passenger has it in his lap.

Even more amazing is the video of the crash, linked from the press release. They had multiple cameras around and in the cars, recording the impact in slow motion. From the video, it seems to me the Malibu driver will walk away with nothing more than airbag abrasions, while the Bel Air driver will have to deal with a face full of dashboard with his own knees mixed in for good measure.

Say what you will about how cars are damaged in accidents, but there’s little doubt in my mind that they’re far safer than they used to be.

Images courtesy of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.