S. Evan Townsend's Blog, page 119

WIP Not in P

Been working on this WIP (Work in Progress) for, well, almost 25 years.  Circa 1988 I thought up this little scene where a private detective is in his office, his secretary in the antechamber, when: "Rose buzzed.  She did that when she was annoyed, her carapace and wings oscillating in a frequency that cut through the skull."

Later (circa 2003) I started writing a story around that (on an airplane, I remember).  I've written just under 10,000 words (including some today) and I have no idea where to go with it.  I'm trying to do a Dashiell Hammett novel in space/the future.  (Hammett wrote The Maltese Falcon which the movie by the same name starring Humphrey Bogart was based.)  Being a hard-boiled detective novel, it needs a cynical yet honorable hero (check), it needs mystery (check, even I can't figure out what's going on), it needs plot twists and turns (not yet), and it needs style (I'm working on that).

The other problem is an idea I have involving a black hole.  But the math and physics are kicking my butt.  I'm hoping if I can solve those problems (and I found someone who's volunteered to help), that'll let me plot out the rest of the novel.  But maybe not.  It's frustrating.  I'm going on a writers' retreat tomorrow with the local writers' group.  Maybe the lack of distraction will get me to write.  Or maybe I'll stare at my blinking cursor for three days.  Dunno.  But my WIP is not Progressing much at this point.

Colorful Language

The new $100 bill comes out tomorrow and its very colorful.  Almost looks Canadian.  And I joked on Twitter "Money isn't green anymore" (even though the back of the bill is mostly green).

And that got me thinking (oh-oh) about how we use color in our language.  Here are some examples I thought of off the top of my head:
In the black: making a profit, not brokeIn the red: not making a profit, brokeRed ink: something that causes you not to make a profitRed tape: regulations, bureaucracyGreen: money, wealthGreenbacks: money, cashGreen: environmentally friendlyIn the pink: healthyBlue: sad, depressedYellow journalism: bad journalism (you know, like the New York Times)Golden: good (this might be more in reference to the metal than the color)Red state: conservative/RepublicanBlue state: liberal/DemocratBlack list: list of banned things or peopleYellow Dog Democrat: someone (in the U.S. South) who votes Democrat, even if it's a yellow dog runningAnd there's got to be more!  I'm not sure if other languages do this to the extent we do in English.

If you have more examples, please leave them in the comments!

The Pac-12 is Strong This Year

If you read this blog you are probably aware I'm a University of Washington Huskies football fan.  In fact, I'm a bit of a die-hard fan: I even stuck by them through the Tyrone Willingham era which culminated in an 0-12 season in 2008.  So I was really excited this year because the Huskies are looking really good (with only one loss so far and that was to #5 Stanford and on what I think was a bad call).

That's the good news.  The bad news is, the Pac-12, their conference, is looking really strong this year, too.  We are through six weeks of play this year and there is only one team in the Pac-12 that has a losing record: California at 1-4.  (Yes, Colorado is 2-2 but, technically, that's not a losing record.)  And there are still three undefeated teams: Oregon (#2 in the AP rankings), Stanford (#5) and UCLA (#11).  And three more teams have only lost one game so far: Washington (#16), Oregon State (unranked since their first-week loss to an FCS team), and Arizona (who has only played 4 games).  So half the Pac-12 have lost one game or less.

The Huskies, it seems, chose a bad year to be good.  Looking at their upcoming schedule they play Oregon next week, a game I think they have a chance to win given how well they played against Stanford, and after that I don't see a team that they shouldn't beat (UCLA will be a challenge, too).  I'll take a 10-2 regular season and then a bowl win.  I'd even be happy with 9-3 and a bowl win.  And next year, even though some key players will be leaving such as quarterback Keith Price, I'll bet they'll be pretty good if not better (their backup quarterback who will probably start next year looked pretty good against Idaho State).

And if head coach Steve Sarkisian at the helm, I think they will continue to improve.  As long as Sarkisian doesn't get lured to the NFL.  Or back to USC.

Robbed

A replay official determined the fate of: the Huskies undefeated season, the outcome of the Stanford game, the Huskies' national ranking, and the momentum the Dawgs will carry into Husky stadium next week facing the #2 Phil Knight Ducks.  A replay official decided a 4th down pass was "incomplete" which gave the ball to Stanford on downs to end the game.  The replay official said the ball hit the ground.  I watched the replay and didn't see the ball hit the ground.  The commentators watched the replay and didn't see the ball hit the ground.  From the Seattle Times this morning:

"It’s unfortunate it came down to a judgment call," [Husky head coach Steve] Sarkisian said. "…I wish the game had been won on the field and not in the booth upstairs with some guy that didn’t get to feel the emotion and hard-fought game it was."

The Huskies looked beat 12 seconds into the game when Stanford scored on a kick-off return.  They looked beat over and over but they never looked defeated and answered and came back out fighting after each setback.  There were mistakes and things to work on (once again, penalties were a huge issue for the Huskies).  But they kept on fighting and never gave up.  The only time quarterback Keith Price, who played the end of the game with a hurt thumb on his throwing hand, looked at all defeated was when the replay official made that bad call to end the game.

But look at these numbers: 21, 14, 14, 38.  Those are the points by which the Cardinal defeated their previous opponents.  The point difference in last night's game: 3.  A 28-31 loss is a heartbreaker especially when the Huskies could have kicked a game-tying field goal or even made a touchdown to win the game.  If it wasn't for a replay official who, in my opinion, made a bad call at the worse possible moment.

The national rankings aren't out yet.  I think the Huskies should not drop in the rankings after their performance last night.  But they probably will.

Science Joke

And we will end our science week with a joke:

Two atoms are walking down the street and accidentally bump into each other.  One exclaims, "I think I just lost an electron!"

The other replies, "Are you sure?"

And the first says, "Yes, I'm positive."

Science Education

We're talking science this week and today I want to discuss science education.  I already talked about why you probably don't like science but I think another problem is how science is taught.  Actually, I think one problem is how a lot of things are taught, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

The way science is taught in public schools (and probably most private schools) is almost guaranteed to make you less interested in science.  Instead of exploring the wonders of the world and the universe through science, they make you memorize useless stuff like what is a "sling hygrometer."  Memorizing facts is boring and stupid.  Why memorize stuff when you can look it up (especially in this age of Google)?  You need to learn the concepts and how and why things happen, not the tedious details.

When I was studying engineering they often had "open book tests" not so you could cheat, but so you could look up formulas.  There was no need to memorize formulas especially when they tended to look like this:
(Some people would say, "Oooooh, open book test, no need to study!" But you had to know how to apply the formulas and what each variable stood for.)

But in K-12 education they make you memorize stuff you can look up.  My theory is, if you use it all the time, you'll memorize it.  If you don't use it all the time, you can look it up.

In science education it seems instead of teaching how a rainbow is made, they make you know the laws of optics.  So even if you make it through your early childhood still a little scientist, the education system also seems designed to beat it out of you.

Writing Advice and Methods

I have a guest blog post on Imogen Knight's blog talking about how I write.  See it here.

Scientific Thinking

I guess we have a science theme going this week.  Yesterday we discussed why you don't like science (assuming you don't).  Today I want to talk about thinking like a scientist.

If you follow me on Twitter, you know I'm on a diet.  As part of this diet I drink a lot of water.  And I mean a lot.  Up to one gallon per day.  To facilitate this water drinking, I have a 1/2 gallon Tupperware pitcher I use.  I fill it with ice and water, I fill my glass with ice and water, then as I drink the water from the glass, I re-fill it from the pitcher.  I do this twice and between the first glass of ice water and the melting ice in the glass and pitcher, I am probably drinking about a gallon of water every day.  This helps stave of hunger and some claim it flushes toxins.  I do know I get more exercise running to the bathroom every 15 minutes or so.

So I'm sitting at my desk working on something (or goofing off) dutifully drinking my water when I hear a squeaking sound to my left where the pitcher rests on my vinyl notebook which serves as sort of a mega-coaster.  And I wonder what the heck is going on.  Why is my water pitcher squeaking.

Now if I were a non-scientific thinker, I might conclude it's haunted, it's alive, or there's a little invisible mouse on top of it.  But, using Occam's Razor, I immediately reject (even without thinking about it) any supernatural explanation.  There must be a logical, scientific explanation, I realize.

I decide the squeak could be explained by the Ideal Gas Law based on the data I empirically gathered.  Okay, I see your eyes glazing over.  So follow me on this:
The pitcher is about half-full of ice-water solution at equilibrium which means the liquid is at almost exactly (because of my altitude and the water not being 100% pure) 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius).The room temperature is about 72 degrees F (22 degrees C). My water pitcherThe pitcher is sealed (see picture) so the volume in the pitch is constant, therefore, between pouring out water, the volume of the ullage is constant (scientists tend to use unfamiliar words because they describe things more precisely).Nature is always trying to reach equilibrium so the warmth of the room will be warming the ice water and the air above it (in the ullage).  As long as there's ice (which will slowly melt to compensate for the warming water) the water should stay at 32 degrees F.  But the air will warm.  This is called "thermal equilibrium."

So here's the Ideal Gas Law:

PV=nRT
I know, gibberish.  So let's break that down.

P is the pressure
V is the volume
n is the amount of gas (measured in "moles" but don't worry about that)
R is the "Ideal Gas Constant" which means it's a number that doesn't change.
T is the temperature.

In the case of the pitcher of water, volume (V) of the ullage is a constant (between pours of water), the amount of air in the ullage (n) is a constant (again, between pours).  The gas constant is always a constant (funny that), but the temperature (T) is rising because it is probably around 32 degrees F but it wants to be 72 degrees (the temperature of the air around it) because it wants to reach thermal equilibrium.

This is, to me, the beauty of science and engineering, that something as simple as the Perfect Gas Law can describe real-world happenings.  (And if you don't think the Perfect Gas Law is simple, take a look at Bernoulli's equation!)  Basically, if V, n, and R are constants, and T goes up, then our math teacher (oh, no, not math!) taught us that P has to go up.  Or to use algebra:

P=(nRT)/V And that can be simplified as: P=KT (Because everything but T and P are constants, I just wrapped them up in one constant I called "K" and if you care: K=(nR)/V Clear as mud?) So from P=KT, if T goes up, P must go up.  So what is happening in my water pitcher is that the temperature of the air in the ullage is rising so the pressure is increasing but the seal at the top is not perfect and the higher-pressure air, again, due to nature's preference for equilibrium (this time of pressure), is trying to escape to the lower-pressure region outside the pitcher, and a little is getting past the hole cover, and it's squeaking as it escapes. Quod erat demonstrandum. And yes, that was a long ways around to "the air is warming up, increasing in temperature, and trying to escape."  But, math and science can be used to explain the phenomena and that works for so many things in the world.  The math gets tough (believe me, I took Chemical Engineering classes) but it's the same principle.  You think like a scientist and describe the world around you in terms that can be modeled mathematically. So next time you're faced with a mystery, approach it scientifically.  Maybe then you won't believe in ghosts.

Why You Don't Like Science

I've often wondered why so many people don't like science because I love science.  I love learning about my world and how it works.  I also love science fiction that involves science, that is known as "hard SF."  When I wrote Rock Killer I was trying to write a hard SF novel.

And I was wondering what would have cause most people to not like science.  Watching my kids grow up (who are all grown, now), I could see in them that they were little scientists.  They would sit and experiment for ages learning about gravity, friction, force all during their early play.  My oldest once stuck his head an a bowl and yelled.  I assumed he was seeing how the sound changed when he did that.  It was also hilarious to watch.

So if we're all born curious little scientists, why don't most people, it seems, like science?  I have a theory:

When you were a baby you were sitting in your highchair and you accidentally drop your spoon off the edge.  It falls to the floor.  And you think, "wow, that's interesting."  Your mother picks it up and sets it on the highchair tray again.  And your little mind is thinking, "I wonder if that works on the other side of the tray."  So you pick the spoon up and drop it off the other side of the tray.  And sure enough, it falls to the floor.  Your mother, a little bit exasperated now, picks it up and puts in on the tray.

Now you're really thinking.  You think you need one more data point to draw your curve.  Does it do the same off the front of the tray.  So you pick up the spoon and drop it off the front of the tray.  And your mother picks it up, puts it on the tray, and says, "Don't do that again."

Nonplussed, you think you've got this down.  But like all good scientists, you want to confirm your theory with reproducible results.  So you toss the spoon and it lands with a clang on the kitchen linoleum.  Pleased with your result you are shocked when your mother puts the spoon back on the tray and yells, "DON'T DO THAT AGAIN!"  And you suddenly decide with one data point that science is scary and no fun.

And that's why you don't like science.

I Am Hopeful that You Use "Hopefully" Correctly

When it comes to grammar and words, I have pet peeves when people use words incorrectly or use improper grammar.  One word that is almost always misused is "Hopefully."  People say "Hopefully the sun will be shining tomorrow" when what they mean is "I hope the sun will be shining tomorrow."  What you can say is, "I am hopefully looking forward to sunshine tomorrow."

Why is that?  We all know that "hopeful" means "full of hope" just like "joyful" means "full of joy."  And "joyfully" is the adverb form of "joyful" and means "as full of joy."  "Hopefully" is the adverb form of "hopeful" so it means "as full of hope."  It doesn't mean "I hope" as so many use it. 

So this would be correct:

Dave hopefully asked Susan to marry him. Now, they way most people would read that is to mean: "I hope Dave asked Susan to marry him."  But what it really means is "Full of hope, Dave asked Susan to marry him." And this is also correct: Susan joyfully said "yes" when Dave hopefully asked her to marry him. And that's how you can remember the correct usage of "hopefully": it's like "joyfully" except being full of joy, you're full of hope.  So I hope from now on you use "hopefully" correctly. Now don't get me started on "take" and "bring!"