In 2008, hundreds of planes will be flying with in-the-air wi-fi service.

One technology comes from AirCell. This is an air-to-ground connection using EV-DO technology. EV-DO is the same technology used by Verizon and other cell phone companies to give laptops broadband access through the cell phone network. AirCell has purchased spectrum (800 Mhz) that it will use for its own airborne EV-DO system. Aircell (and other sysytems like it) can work well when flying over the United States. It would not work well for trans-oceanic flights. This video describes the basics of AirCell technology:

While in the air, your laptop communicates with a wi-fi hub on the airplane, and then the hub communicates with towers on the ground to reach the Internet. American Airlines is one airline that will be using AirCell.

For long oceanic flights, you need to get the connection from a satellite rather than ground-based towers. Boeing tried this approach with a service called Connexion. But it cost about $500,000 per plane to install and never took off. Boeing cancelled the service in 2006.

A company called Row44 is trying again with the satellite approach. According to the Row44 FAQ, “The Row 44 System provides data rates averaging 30 Mbps in the downlink direction (from the satellite to the aircraft) and 620 Kbps maximum in the uplink direction.” The connection is provided by a network of satellites owned by Hughes. Alaska Airlines is one airline that will be using Row44 in 2008.

If you are at a Super Bowl party this weekend, you may want to avoid the dip:

Dip Once or Dip Twice?

The concern is “doubling dipping” – a concern first given wide publicity by an episode of “Seinfeld.” The problem mentioned in that episode is that some people take a bite of a chip, and then stick the chip back in the dip bowl a second time. To determine whether this transgression does indeed transfer germs, students tested it:

The team of nine students instructed volunteers to take a bite of a wheat cracker and dip the cracker for three seconds into about a tablespoon of a test dip. They then repeated the process with new crackers, for a total of either three or six double dips per dip sample. The team then analyzed the remaining dip and counted the number of aerobic bacteria in it. They didn’t determine whether any of the bacteria were harmful, and didn’t count anaerobic bacteria, which are harder to culture, or viruses.

There were six test dips: sterile water with three different degrees of acidity, a commercial salsa, a cheese dip and chocolate syrup.

The results?

On average, the students found that three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from the eater’s mouth to the remaining dip.

It makes you wonder if the communal dip bowl will go the way of tap water eventually. Will some company invent single-serving dips? Or will a new social protocol evolve?

Here, by the way, is the scene from Seinfeld:

[See previous PSA]

The AD-1:

See also:

Ames-Dryden-1 (AD-1)

From the article:

It was designed as a low-cost/low-speed research aircraft to test a pivot wing design. The AD-1 took off with its wing positioned at a right angle with the fuselage. Once in the air, the wing would rotate on its pivot point on the fuselage until it formed a 60 degree angle. The goal was to design a high-speed transport with low drag. The AD-1 made a total of 79 flights, but adverse handling at sharp sweep angles made the approach less attractive. …

The aircraft was 38.8 feet long and 6.75 feet high with a wing span of 32.3 feet, unswept. It was constructed of plastic reinforced with fiberglass and weighed 1,450 pounds,empty. The vehicle was powered by two small turbojet engines, each producing 220 pounds of thrust at sea level. Due to safety concerns, the aircraft was limited to speeds of 170 mph.

[See #27]

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory is a NASA satellite that will orbit the earth and measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere with high accuracy. The goal is to find sources and sinks for CO2 to better understand where CO2 is being created and absorbed on the planet. This page describes the mission:

OCO – Orbiting Carbon Observatory

One reason for this mission is the fact that we don’t really understand all the sinks right now. It is not clear where all the CO2 goes when it is absorbed. This satellite will help understand the sinks better.

Here is an NPR interview with David Crisp, one of the scientists working on the mission:

Orbiting Carbon Observatory

Cool, but strange:

And the slo-mo is nice.

The obvious question: how did they create the explosions? It would appear that they used a licensed pyrotechnician for the shoot and that he/she used flash powder. This video, for example, shows the effect of two ounces of flash powder:

This page shows a van explosion using flash powder (includes a video at the bottom):

VAN EXPLOSION PYROTECHNICS

The 9/11 conspiracy theory popped (very briefly) into the news again this week because 9/11 hecklers had another run-in with Bill Clinton:

Conincidentally with that, I have a friend who sent me links to a series of 9/11 conspiracy theory videos called “September Clues”. The gist of September Clues seems to be, “we can find evidence that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ by looking at the news coverage of events on that day.” If you enjoy conspiracy theories, it’s an interesting angle. Here is part 1:

Also:

- September Clues, part 2

There are 8 or 9 parts if you are interested. This one follows the same angle:

- 9/11 Amateur

[See previous TCT]

Here’s the question:

One things that I have run across on my quest for a TV is: Pixel response time, shown as 8 ms (milliseconds) more or less. Where does this fit in and what range should we be looking for?

If you are looking to buy a new LCD HDTV, there are several things that you need to think about. There is the number of pixels on the screen (you can get an actual 1,920 by 1,080 pixels, or the less expensive 1,366 x 768). There’s the contrast ratio, which can range from 500:1 up to 30,000:1 or more. There’s the refresh rate (either 60 or 120 hertz).

And then there is something called the “response time”. This is measured in milliseconds. If you were to go back a few years, response time was as high as 65 milliseconds. 8 milliseconds is pretty common now, but it can go as low as 2 or 3 milliseconds.

The response time measures how long it takes for a pixel on the screen to go from black to white and back to black again. This controls how crisp the screen will look when there is a lot of movement. With a long response time, you can get ghosting or smearing in the picture when things move on the screen. With a short response time you don’t.

8 milliseconds is common because, if you divide 1 second by 120, you get 8.25 milliseconds. If it is 8 or less, you generally won’t see any ghosting. Below 8, many people cannot see a difference. If you go to a retailer and look at similar screens with different response times, you will be able to tell if it makes a difference to you or not. If not, it becomes a moot point.

These two articles go into it in a lot more deatil if you are interested:

- LCD screens in a nutshell

- LCD Response Time – Is faster always better?

In this video, there is an advantages/disadvantages comparison between DLP and LCD screens. One thing DLP has going for it is super quick response times:

[Got a question? You can send it to marshall.brain at the domain howstuffworks.com]

A 10 year old builds an awesome snow making machine with an air compressor and a pressure washer:

Real-World Calvin Builds Snow Machine, Creates Backyard Mountain Overnight

The link includes a video showing his invention.

For more info see: How snow makers work

[See previous TIM]

Tired of that pesky snow weighing down your truck and causing all kinds of unnecessary drag?

[[[See previous invention]]]

In an ideal world, it would make no difference. But the world is not ideal, so we have this social experiment, carried out in fascinating detail:

Curly vs. Straight: Which Do Men Prefer?

From the article:

Would it really make a difference? To find out, I embarked on an unscientific social experiment. Newly single in New York City, I joined a popular online dating service and posted two profiles. They were identical in every way—except one. The first profile included a picture of my hair flat-ironed straight. For the other, my hair was naturally curly. After one month showcasing the straight profile and the next month curly, more than twice as many men responded to…

Then she takes it one step further:

There’s a twist. On my dates, the plan was to find out what they really think when I show up as the opposite of what they expect. If they reach out to my straight profile, I would meet them as a curly, and vice versa. Would my hairstyle really affect their attraction?

Interesting… How could collected filaments of keratin have such an effect?

See also: How Hair Coloring Works