Comments

RMORTI

Gadgets

Tech In Training: You Know You're Crazy When the Toenails Go

By Mike Haney Posted on 10.21.2009 4 Comments
The first time I read that running can turn your toenails black or even make them fall off, I knew I'd found the limit to my dedication to the sport. I'll run through achey joints, sore muscles and most blisters, but toenails are sacrosanct, a permanent part of my body. Fortunately, mine have survived my handful of marathons entirely intact and properly colored. Some, however, are being preempting the problem.

10.22.2009 at 08:47pm - Comment by RMORTI

Food for thought, it is actually more common than bleeding nipples. The nails repeatedly rub the shoe creating a blood blister under the nail. It is also associated with running downhill alot. Summer weather makes it worse because the feet tend to swell more. Proper shoe sizing, good socks the wick moisture away, and tight laces close to the toes can help prevent this. Never run in 100% cotton socks. Cotton retains moisture and you will get blisters in the summer and cold clammy feet in the winter. Stick with synthetic materials that wick away moisture. I run about 6-7 miles a day, nothing close to 26.2 miles or God forbid the 62 mile Lake Saroma ultra marathon in Hokaido. Reading Murakami's story on that run was enough to make me never want to attempt it. My constant irritant is ingrown toenails from the nail pushing on the side of the shoe, but they don't turn black. I think I need to run farther everyday because having those toenails fall off would be a blessing.
Science

Is It Ethical To Engineer Delicious Cows That Feel No Pain?

By Jeremy Hsu Posted on 9.2.2009 20 Comments
Most people don't think too much about bovine hurt when they chow down on a Big Mac or Whopper. But for those with moral pangs, scientists say genetic engineering might provide a solution, by creating pain-free animals that can satiate the human appetite without suffering.

9.3.2009 at 09:34pm - Comment by RMORTI

I thought the plan was to grow boneless cubes of beef and skip the whole "painfree animal with broken legs walking in a pasture full of gophur holes" phase. The benefits are obvious - the cubes don't pass gas.
Technology

DARPA Readies an Ultra-Fast Mini-Sub

By Posted on 7.28.2009 19 Comments
In a world of rapidly evolving threats, every branch of the military is looking for a way to respond as quickly as possible. But whereas the Air Force, Army and Marines can simply fly to whatever hot spot flares up next, the Navy, by its very nature, still needs to sail. That's where the Underwater Express comes in. Currently, the Navy's fastest submarine can only travel at 25 to 30 knots while submerged. But if everything goes according to plan, the Underwater Express will speed along at 100 knots, allowing the delivery of men and materiel faster than ever.

7.28.2009 at 10:46pm - Comment by RMORTI

Just to follow up on this. Back in the 50's, the USN proposed building a 10,000 ton submarine transport. 720 feet long with a beam of 124 feet. I don't recall the specified propulsion plant for the project. It was hoped to carry 2,240 marines and transport them ashore using a yet to be specified high speed "flying platform." The Soviets probably spent more time on submersible transport projects. One in the 60's would be an 11,000 ton nuclear powered vessel with two vehicle decks. It would carry 20 tanks and APC's and 470 troops. The design would have a main pressure hull flanked on each side by a second hull that contained the vehicles. All three hulls would be encased in an outer hull. Look for project 748 for details. Here is a link to an image of project 748: http://sub-log.com/files/images/sovietgiants_Project-748.gif The Russians were talking about merchant submarines into the 90's. Look for Malachite design bureau for discussion on merchant submarines transporting petroleum or freight under the polar ice caps. The capacity of such a vessel was proposed to be 30,000 tons of petroleum or 912 x standard 20ft shipping container.
Technology

DARPA Readies an Ultra-Fast Mini-Sub

By Posted on 7.28.2009 19 Comments
In a world of rapidly evolving threats, every branch of the military is looking for a way to respond as quickly as possible. But whereas the Air Force, Army and Marines can simply fly to whatever hot spot flares up next, the Navy, by its very nature, still needs to sail. That's where the Underwater Express comes in. Currently, the Navy's fastest submarine can only travel at 25 to 30 knots while submerged. But if everything goes according to plan, the Underwater Express will speed along at 100 knots, allowing the delivery of men and materiel faster than ever.

7.28.2009 at 08:23pm - Comment by RMORTI

Very limited role as a mini-sub. Perhaps the concept is a long range seal/specfor delivery vehicle, launched from a mother submarine at greater range than is currently possible. It would take a very large submarine to carry the amount of troops and cargo required to support a MEU, and then you have to get the cargo out of the sub and onto the beach. Massive watertight hatches, vast cargo holds, are just a few obstacles to overcome. Take for example the LSD-49 HARPERS FERRY class LSD. 610 feet long, 84 foot beam, 177 feet tall (including mast). This ship transports about 500 troops, their ammuntion, and equipment (vehicles, conex boxes, artillery) along with the 2 LCAC's and 2 helicopters used to get it to the beach. An LSD has a crew of about 350. In contrast, an OHIO class SSBN is 560 feet long with a 42 foot beam, and a crew of about 155. In order to build something torpedo like, the length of such a vessel might be over 1000 feet. To put that in perspective, that is a submarine as long as a NIMITZ class aircraft carrier. In a commercial role I expect there would be less obstacles, since the cargo is normally containerized in standard sizes and would be hoisted out by pier cranes. It would eliminate the loss of cargo in heavy weather as the submarine would pass below areas of heavy winds and rough seas. Commercially, the goal is to safely move cargo from point A to point B in the shortest time at an affordable price.
The Environment

Windpower Prop, Seen Close Up, Is Massive

By Dan Smith Posted on 6.17.2009 6 Comments
A single prop for a wind turbine has been caught in the wild by Dogmantra, a friend of the Boing Boing Gadgets blog.

6.17.2009 at 08:25pm - Comment by RMORTI

Wait till they start making the blades out of carbon nanotubes.
Science

The Hyper-Sub

By Posted on 7.16.2008 7 Comments
Nautical engineers have long dreamed of a craft that could race across wave tops like a speedboat and seconds later dive beneath them like a submarine. But crossing the two breeds presents a catch-22: Subs need heft to sink, but speedboats need to be lightweight to go fast. With an investment of nearly $2 million and years of research, former auto-shop owner Reynolds Marion of Lake City, Florida, has finally hit on a solution, a machine he’s dubbed the Hyper-Submersible Powerboat. When complete, it will reach speeds of up to 45 mph and dive down to 1,200 feet.

7.17.2008 at 01:07am - Comment by RMORTI

drug smugglers. This is one of those "good idea/bad idea" ideas.
Technology

The Return of the Blimp

By Posted on 7.10.2008 11 Comments
Mammoth-sized blimps may work well as advertising tools, but soon they could be doing a lot more work than that. Aerospace and defense corporation Boeing and Canadian company SkyHook International are working together to create a 302-foot-long airship with rotors that can haul heavy loads—double the capacity of the biggest helicopter—across remote regions at a lower fuel and environmental cost.

7.11.2008 at 01:46am - Comment by RMORTI

and I was just starting to like that show. I've seen a similar proposal before, and just recently there was discussion on a passenger style airship that would operate between Europe and Africa. I've always been fascinated by airships despite the numerous crashes. I wonder how much fuel they use for a 200 mile trip? Can you imagine seeing these replace big tractor trailers. A highway without tractor trailers, now that would be nice.
The Environment

Britain Finally Sees the Light, Admits Biofuels Are Bad News

By Posted on 7.7.2008 17 Comments
It’s common sense—people need food first, fuel second. But today, Britain became the first Western nation to announce that its biofuel production will be curbed, since it’s likely causing rising food prices and rainforest destruction.

7.7.2008 at 06:15pm - Comment by RMORTI

The U.S government paid farmers not to grow crops. Atela's right, many of the "science magazines" were excited about bio fuel alternatives and pumped ethanol for all it was worth. Solar energy, wind farms, wave and ocean current farms, and algae production in the deserts seem to be the more rational approach. Cutting down rain forest to grow more sugar cane or over fertilizing fields for bio fuel production which cause massive algae blooms from run off seem to do more harm than good. A few months back, an article stated that England was considering building a couple more reactors just to meet the power demands of new HD televisions, and I think the U.S should build some more as well; but I have this hunch that it will try to figure out how to cleanly burn all of it's coal first. Congressional lobyists and some talk show hosts have the masses convinced that drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore will immediately drop the price of gas at the pump. I don't think it will, but if it does then the reduction in price will be temporary at best. All that drilling equipment costs money, a lot of money, and the cost will be passed on to consumers at the pump.
The Environment

Polar Ice Likely to Disappear This Summer

By Posted on 6.27.2008 9 Comments
This summer, for the first time in recorded history, there may be no ice on the North Pole. In a dramatic symptom of climate change, the thick frozen layer at the pole is likely to melt away entirely, turning the top of the world from sea ice to sea water.

6.30.2008 at 08:26pm - Comment by RMORTI

I would concur that science is the answer. I do not concur with the comment that we know how it [the earths complex climate model] works, but I think that everyday we learn something new and important. A recent article about UV helping to breakdown ozone in the atmosphere shows that science is still discovering new information. There are some natural causes for climate change such as precession and the direction the pole faces during the summer and winter that can influence Arctic warming and cooling. I think the media does a poor job of properly educating the public on climate change. If ABC tells its viewers that the melting Arctic ice will raise sea levels 200 feet, the sheep will sagely nod their heads. In reality, melting sea ice wouldn't raise the sea level about about 4mm, whereas if Greenland's land ice melted it would probably raise sea levels 20ft. If all the Arctic ice melted several bad things will probably happen. 1) The jet stream might move farther north increasing precipitation in the Artic region and creating more drought in the mid latitudes. This in turn will impact the food producing regions and increase the demand for irrigation, which is already under stress. Southern Japan, for example, has been dealing with drought conditions for several years now. 2) More open water in the Artic will increase the strength of storms and the associated land errosion in that region. 3) The strength of monsoons and recurvature of hurricanes will change with the shift of the jet stream. We should do what we can to minimize our contribution to climate change. I think we can safely use nuclear power and store waste. I think nuclear power is the fastest method to reduce our dependency on coal for electricity. I'm not thrilled about it, but given the options it is a lesser evil at the moment. I also think that we have to continue to develop and build alternative energy sources, solar, algae, etc. I think we need to improve our water storage and distribution networks. I think we need to reduce fertilizer runoff which appears to be increasing algae blooms and dead zones in the oceans.
The Environment

Polar Ice Likely to Disappear This Summer

By Posted on 6.27.2008 9 Comments
This summer, for the first time in recorded history, there may be no ice on the North Pole. In a dramatic symptom of climate change, the thick frozen layer at the pole is likely to melt away entirely, turning the top of the world from sea ice to sea water.

6.29.2008 at 10:56pm - Comment by RMORTI

Let's consider a few things. First, conservative estimates place the total melting of the polar cap at 25% and extremely liberal estimates put it at 50%. Secondly, "for the first time in recorded history" doesn't carry much clout with me since human recorded history is a mere drop in the bucket of time and measurements of artic ice thickness didn't begin until quite recently. Are there any benefits to the ice cap melting? Well, this would actually be a boon for ocean shipping, reducing the distance travelled by thousands of miles. The U.S. Geological survey of the Arctic estimates that 25% of the world's untapped oil and natural gas deposits are within 200 miles of the north pole, so that would be accessible. Finally, It opens up a large fishing ground, allowing us to eat the rest of the fish in the world faster. I doubt you will find any sunken Atlantis or black holes when the ice melts though. The U.S, British, and Russians have extensively mapped the Arctic sea bed because that's where they've been hiding all of their ballistic missile submarines (ops, now where will they hide them?). There is also the tricky problem of territorial ownership. How will Russia, Canada, The U.S. and a few other countries split up the territory?