Category Archives: other

So many questions! Fragen über Fragen.

These are the questions we are hoping to answer during our 8 days at the JuniorAkademie [deutscher Text unten]

17 participants and 66 questions!

We managed to cluster the topics into five working groups: “Climate”, “Ice”, “Currents and Tides”, “Salt and Density” and “Waves”. We learning-provokers have ideas for experiments for all of those topics, but before we give those away, we are going to see what the groups come up with themselves. There has already been a lot of discussion and one thing is certain: We will need A LOT of ice!

17 Teilnehmer und 66 Fragen! Wir haben die Fragen geclustert und daraus fünf Themen entwickelt: “Klima”, “Eis”, “Strömungen und Gezeiten”, “Salz und Dichte” und “Wellen”. Wir Lehrprovokateure haben Ideen für Experimente für alle diese Themen, aber bevor wir die verraten, werden wir erstmal abwarten, was die Gruppen selbst entwickeln. Es gab schon große Diskussionen und eine Sache ist klar: Wir werden VIEL Eis brauchen!

 

Playing with remotely controlled toy boats

More toys we brought for the JuniorAkademie

For the JuniorAkademie, we brought all kinds of toys. The ones that I am most excited about is this remotely controlled boat.

I am pretty sure that I wasn’t older than 8 when I got that boat, and when I discovered it the last time I moved houses, I was super excited and had to bring it to the JuniorAkademie to play!

Another toy we have available is almost even cooler (it would really be cooler if I wasn’t so excited about my boat still working after all these years) – a remotely controlled submarine!

If you would like a taste of what that thing can do, watch the movie below.

Now you know me. And you know that we’ll likely set up stratified tanks very soon. Do you see the endless possibilities this submarine offers???

[edit on the next day: my parents already sent me a picture of two submarines that they bought after reading my post. Do I have awesome parents or what???]

Oben zeige ich zwei der tollsten Spielzeuge, die wir mit zur JuniorAkademie gebracht haben: das ferngesteuerte Boot, das ich habe seit ich ungefähr 8 Jahre alt bin (und ich hab mich so gefreut, als ich es gestern ausprobiert habe und es noch funktioniert hat! Das hatte ich kaum zu hoffen gewagt), und das U-Boot, das Martin neu erstanden hat.

Mit ferngesteuerten Booten zu spielen ist immer toll, aber wir wollen ja in den nächsten Tagen auch “normale” Tankexperimente machen, wo wir Wasser in unterschiedlichen Farben und mit unterschiedlichen Dichten übereinander schichten. Wenn wir dann da unsere Boote drauf loslassen: Was das für tolle interne Wellen geben wird!

[Nachtrag am nächsten Tag: Meine Eltern haben mir schon ein Foto geschickt von den zwei U-Booten, die sie sofort gekauft haben, nachdem sie meinen Post von gestern gelesen haben. Habe ich tolle Eltern oder habe ich tolle Eltern?]

Hovercraft

Using air for reducing ship resistance and for propulsion. [deutscher Text unten]

One of my favorite toys at the moment: My new hovercraft.

Unfortunately, it has a couple of issues. As A and I realized in a field test: it does not like wind.

And even under control conditions in a lab, it doesn’t always go forward – usually it likes going sideward a lot better.

But all issues of my hovercraft aside, there are a couple of interesting things to be learned from this toy. For example how it propels itself forwards by kicking back air. And how it rides on a layer of bubbles, which, as air lubrication, is used as an energy-saving technique for ships. The air bubbles, trapped underneath the ship’s hull, reduce resistance. In the context of carbon emissions and fuel prices, this technology looks pretty interesting!

Seit einiger Zeit habe ich ein neues Spielzeug: Ein Hovercraft. Wenn man den Ballon aufbläst und auf das Boot aufsetzt, kann man das Boot ins Wasser setzen und durch die aus dem Ballon ausströmende Luft das Boot antreiben. Das ist einerseits ein lustiges Experiment, andererseits zeigt es sogar ein Phänomen, was in der Entwicklung von neuen Schiffen heutzutage auch genutzt wird: Luftbasen, die unter den Schiffsrumpf geblasen werden, um die Reibung zu verringern. Das hat sowohl was den Treibstoffverbrauch als auch für den CO2-Ausstoß natürlich interessante Konsequenzen. Hoffentlich will auf der Juniorakademie jemand mit mir und meinem Hovercraft spielen! Dafür habe ich es auf jeden Fall mitgenommen ;-)

Oceanography experiments deluxe: JuniorAkademie

A week-long workshop for school kids on ocean and climate, using both tank experiments and numerical models. [deutscher Text unten]

Be warned: I will post a lot over the next 8 days. And that is because I am attending the JuniorAkademie “Wind und Meer” in Bad Bederkesa in Lower Saxony, Germany. The JuniorAkademie is aimed at school pupils grade 7-10, and together with Rolf Käse and Martin Vogt I’ll be a Lernprovokateur, a learning-provoker, for a group of 17 students interested in oceanography and climate. We will run experiments and do numerical modeling and have a lot of fun together. I am very excited to be here!

 

Über die nächsten 8 Tage werde ich live und in Farbe aus Bad Bederkesa, Niedersachsen, berichten. Ich bin hier auf der JuniorAkademie “Wind und Meer”, wo ich zusammen mit Rolf Käse und Martin Vogt ein Lernprovokateur für die 17 Schüler bin, die am Workshop “Ozeanographie: Meeresströmungen und Klimaforschung” teilnehmen. Wir werden gemeinsam Experimente und numerische Modellierung durchführen und eine Menge Spaß zusammen haben! Ich freue mich sehr, hier zu sein!

Testing drives learning.

Once you’ve tested on something correctly once, you will remember it forever. Right?

In a study on “The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning” by Karpicke and Roediger (2008), four different student groups are compared in order to figure out the importance of both repetition and testing for longer-term recall of learned facts.

Students are asked to memorize a list of 40 Swahili-English word pairs, and then tested on those pairs. After the first test, the four groups are then treated differently: The first group continues studying and testing on all word pairs. The second group continues studying all word pairs, but is only tested on those words that were not successfully recalled. As soon as one word pair is successfully recalled, it is dropped from all subsequent tests. The third group is tested on all word pairs in all tests, but word pairs that were successfully recalled in a test are dropped from subsequent studying. And for the last group, every successfully recalled word pair is dropped from all subsequent studying and testing.

The learning gain during the study period is very similar for all four groups, but interestingly the recall a week later is not.

The groups that were always tested on all word pairs, no matter whether the word pairs were studied until the end or dropped after successful retrieval, could recall about 80% of the word pairs one week later. The students in the other two groups, where word pairs were dropped from testing after successful retrieval, only recalled between 30 and 40% of word pairs correctly.

This basically shows that repeated studying does not have an effect once a word pair has been successfully recalled once, but that repeated testing even after a successful recall consolidates the learning. Testing drives learning, indeed.

These findings should probably have substantial implications on the way we teach – and on how we learn ourselves. The authors report that self-testing is rarely reported as a self-studying technique and that practicing retrieval is only ever a side benefit of students testing whether or not they have learned. And the findings are indeed contradicting the widely accepted conventional wisdom that repetition will improve retention of material. So at the very least, we should share the findings of this study with students and educators.

One way to include more testing in large classes are clickers and multiple choice questions, and the benefits of clickers on retention of material are discussed in the Marsh et a. (2007) paper discussed recently.

Another way would be to encourage students to not just repeatedly read a text when studying for an exam, but to ask themselves questions on details of the text to test what they remember and how well they understand it.

Come to think of it, there are really a lot of possibilities for including question-asking in classes. How are you going to do it?

Miraflores Locks on the Panama Canal

My friend Astrid recently went to see the Panama Canal and I so wish I had been there, too!

But luckily Astrid made tons of movies of how a ship went through one of the locks, and kindly let me share those movies here. For your convenience I’ve combined 7 movies spanning the 15 minutes it took the ship to go through the lock into the movie below.

The Miraflores lock is on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal. In two steps, ships are lifted or lowered 16.5 m here. That’s about 2/3 of the total height ships are being lifted when traveling through the Panama Canal.

I am so impressed with those locks. Can you imagine the forces they have to withstand? There would be a lot of water spilling if they ever gave way. I wouldn’t want to be downstream of a broken lock…

Also did you notice those “mules”, those tugs, on either side of the basin, keeping the ship in position?

 

Trying to understand surface tension

Who has an understanding of the effect of washing-up liquid on surface tension on a molecular level? Please help!

I’ve recently shown a lot of experiments on the topic of surface tension. And while it is a helpful analogy to think of a thin membrane on top of the water that lets water striders or paper clips sit on the water and not sink, and that rips open when washing-up liquid is introduced – this is really not satisfactory to me. But I am having a hard time understanding surface tension on a molecular level.

So let’s go back to the basics. Water molecules have a polar structure that allows each water molecule to form up to four hydrogen bonds to neighboring water molecules. A water molecule in midst of other water molecules will hence experience strong cohesive forces in all directions, which vanish in sum.

A water molecule at the very water surface will only experience strong cohesive forces from water molecules underneath it or from water molecules sitting at the surface right next to it, since there are no (or hardly any) water molecules above it, and adhesion with air molecules is much less strong. A water molecule at the surface will hence not easily leave the surface, and the surface itself will try to minimize its area, since that’s the best configuration energetically. If small weights are put on the water surface, the water surface will be deformed slightly, but not break, and this behavior will indeed look similar to a membrane spread over the water surface.

So far, so good. But why does this “membrane” rip when we put washing-up liquid on it?

That is because the molecules in dish soap attach to the uppermost water molecules with their hydrophil end, hence the resulting force on the uppermost layer of water molecules isn’t downward any more. The hydrophob ends of the soap molecules make sure the soap stays at the surface and prohibit formation of a new “membrane”.

Do you hate these graphics, too? My excuse: no computer allowed on this vacation and the ipad doesn’t have a better app. Do you have suggestions for ipad graphics apps that can deal with typed text well? I’m all ears!

 

Secondary rainbows

Sometimes you get lucky and see a double rainbow. But how does the second rainbow form?

On my first 17th of May in Bergen, Ellen invited me to her home for a traditional dinner, which was exceptional. And as a bonus we got to see a double rainbow over Store Lungårdsvann!

Screen shot 2014-07-11 at 6.16.13 PM

Double rainbow in Bergen on May 17th 2011

The outer rainbow is the so-called secondary rainbow, and as you can see the colors in the secondary rainbow are reversed, with red being on the inside and blue being on the outside.

Having watched my explanations in the textbook-style movie or in the short movie collection, is the sketch below enough information for you to make sense of how a secondary rainbow forms?

If the sketch isn’t clear – what additional information would you need to make sense of the sketch?

Here comes the movie in case you’d like to watch it:

I have yet a newer version of the rainbow movies as well as the one pictured above ready for you, but I thought I’d give you a bit of a break from rainbows and talk about something else for a while. But we’ll be back to rainbows soon, promise!

Listening to computer code

You need to check out this blog: OceanInsight – musings of a blind oceanographer.

Amy Bower is a physical oceanographer who I’ve had the pleasure to hear speak on several occasions. I mainly associate her with her work on the deep western boundary current and interior pathways in the North Atlantic, but she has worked on many other exciting topics. A while back I discovered her blog OceanInsight – musings of a blind oceanographer which is a fascinating read. In the post Jaws Goes to Sea she describes how she uses a screen reader to work on a computer, and gives examples of what it sounds like when she is reading emails or editing computer programs. Especially if you are coding yourself, but even if you are not, you need to go and check out her blog and that specific post!

Similarity requirements of a hydrodynamic model

Why downscaling only works down to a certain limit

When talking about oceanographic tank experiments that are designed to show features of the real ocean, many people hope for tiny model oceans in a tank, analogous to the landscapes in model train sets. Except even tinier (and cuter), of course, because the ocean is still pretty big and needs to fit in the tank.

What people hardly ever consider, though, is that purely geometrical downscaling cannot work. I’ve talked about surface tension a lot recently. Is that an important effect when looking at tides in the North Sea? Probably not. If your North Sea was scaled down to a 1 liter beaker, though, would you be able to see the concave surface? You bet. On the other hand, do you expect to see Meddies when running outflow experiments like this one? And even if you saw double diffusion happening in that experiment, would the scales be on scale to those of the real ocean? Obviously not. So clearly, there is a limit of scalability somewhere, and it is possible to determine where that limit is – with which parameters reality and a model behave similarly.

IMG_5320

Mediterranean outflow. Mediterranean on the left, Atlantic Ocean on the right. The warm and salty water of the Mediterranean Outflow is dyed red.

I’ve noticed that people start glazing over when I talk about this, so in the future, instead of talking about it, I am going to refer them to this post. So here we go:

Similarity is achieved when the model conditions fulfill the three different types of similarity:

Geometrical similarity
Objects are called geometrically similar, if one object can be constructed from the other by uniformly scaling it (either shrinking or enlarging). In case of tank experiments, geometrical similarity has to be met for all parts of the experiment, i.e. the scaling factor from real structures/ships/basins/… to model structures/ships/basins/… has to be the same for all elements involved in a specific experiment. This also holds for other parameters like, for example, the elastic deformation of the model.

Kinematic similarity
Velocities are called similar if x, y and z velocity components in the model have the same ratio to each other as in the real application. This means that streamlines in the model and in the real case must be similar.

Dynamic similarity
If both geometrical similarity and kinematic similarity are given, dynamic similarity is achieved. This means that the ratio between different forces in the model is the same as the ratio between different scales in the real application. Forces that are of importance here are for example gravitational forces, surface forces, elastic forces, viscous forces and inertia forces.

 

Dimensionless numbers can be used to describe systems and check if the three similarities described above are met. In the case of the experiments presented on my blog, the Froude number and the Reynolds number are the most important dimensionless numbers.

The Froude number is the ratio between inertia and gravity. If model and real world application have the same Froude number, it is ensured that gravitational forces are correctly scaled.

The Reynolds number is the ratio between inertia and viscous forces. If model and real world application have the same Reynolds number, it is ensured that viscous forces are correctly scaled.

To obtain equality of Froude number and Reynolds number for a model with the scale 1:10, the kinematic viscosity of the fluid used to simulate water in the model has to be 3.5×10-8m2/s, several orders of magnitude less than that of water, which is on the order of 1×10-6m2/s.

There are a couple of other dimensionless numbers that can be relevant in other contexts than the kind of tank experiments we are doing here, like for example the Mach number (Ratio between inertia and elastic fluid forces; in our case not very important because the elasticity of water is very small) or the Weber number (the ration between inertia and surface tension forces). In hydrodynamic modeling in shipbuilding, the inclusion of cavitation is also important: The production and immediate destruction of small bubbles when water is subjected to rapid pressure changes, like for example at the propeller of a ship.

It is often impossible to achieve similarity in the strict sense in a model experiment. The further away from similarity the model is relative to the real worlds, the more difficult model results are to interpret with respect to what can be expected in the real world, and the more caution is needed when similar behavior is assumed despite the conditions for it not being met.

This is however not a problem: Tank experiments are still a great way of gaining insights into the physics of the ocean. One just has to design an experiment specifically for the one process one wants to observe, and keep in mind the limitations of each experimental setup as to not draw conclusions about other processes that might not be adequately represented.