How do we know the age of the Universe? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.” -Samuel Ullman

When it comes to the Universe, there are some dead giveaways as to what its age is. Its elemental composition changes, the types of stars that are present evolve, the large-scale structure visible to us morphs, grows and ceases, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background drops, among many other signs.

Image credit: Suzuki et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project), accepted for publication, Ap.J., 2011., via http://ift.tt/1iUvdNJ.

Yet when we put them all together, there are only two methods available to measure the age of the Universe: the measurement of its expansion history and the measurement of the age of the oldest stars. The first is by far the more accurate, at 13.81 billion years (plus or minus just 120 million), while the second validates that picture, with a maximum age of 13-to-14 billion years.

Image credit: Joel D. Hartman, Princeton University, via http://ift.tt/26AYHtC.

Go learn the full story, plus how we arrive at that number, over on Forbes today!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/26AYHtE

“Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years. We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul.” -Samuel Ullman

When it comes to the Universe, there are some dead giveaways as to what its age is. Its elemental composition changes, the types of stars that are present evolve, the large-scale structure visible to us morphs, grows and ceases, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background drops, among many other signs.

Image credit: Suzuki et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project), accepted for publication, Ap.J., 2011., via http://ift.tt/1iUvdNJ.

Yet when we put them all together, there are only two methods available to measure the age of the Universe: the measurement of its expansion history and the measurement of the age of the oldest stars. The first is by far the more accurate, at 13.81 billion years (plus or minus just 120 million), while the second validates that picture, with a maximum age of 13-to-14 billion years.

Image credit: Joel D. Hartman, Princeton University, via http://ift.tt/26AYHtC.

Go learn the full story, plus how we arrive at that number, over on Forbes today!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/26AYHtE

Climate Or Bust: Sanders and Clinton Should Step Up Now [Greg Laden's Blog]

This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright.

Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She

is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day.

______________________________________________

It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

______________________________________________

*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Ta7Y1w

This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright.

Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She

is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day.

______________________________________________

It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

______________________________________________

*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1Ta7Y1w

Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?

There’s a widespread misconception about science denial – that on issues like the safety vaccines and genetically modified foods (GMOs), denial is found predominantly on the political left, mirroring the denial of evolution and climate science on the political right. This assumption has even been presented on The Daily Show, but it’s supported by precious little evidence. In fact, as Chris Mooney documented in great detail in 2014:

[The data] do not support the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial [on the political right].

New polling further debunks the science denial symmetry myth

A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”. There was little difference in answers across political affiliations – Democrats and Republicans were evenly split on the question of safe/unsafe, and Independents were more likely to consider GMOs unsafe. Gender and family income best predicted the answers, with men and higher-income individuals more likely to consider GMOs safe.

Those surveyed were also asked if the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is indisputable. In this case, Democrats were the most likely to answer yes (68%) rather than no (21%), followed by Independents (53% to 33%), with Republicans expressing the least confidence in the science supporting vaccine safety (47% yes, 42% no). Contrary to The Daily Show clip, these data show that vaccine science denial is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals.

A 2013 paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the links between ideology and science denial. The study similarly found no evidence of symmetrical science denial between liberals and conservatives on different issues. The authors concluded that conspiratorial thinking and free market support - both prevalent on the political right - were most strongly related to science denial:

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

The study found that libertarian objections to government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs explained the prevalence of anti-vaccine views among conservatives. They also found that those on the liberal side of the spectrum are more likely to distrust the pharmaceutical industry, and thus also oppose vaccinations, but as borne out by the YouGov poll data, this appears to be a smaller effect. On GMOs, the Lewandowsky study found no link between trust in science and ideology, again, consistent with the latest polling data.

Conservative trust in science has steadily declined

The YouGov poll also asked respondents “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have that what scientists say is accurate and reliable?”. There was little difference between various ethnicities, ages, geographical regions, or genders. However, Democrats were far more likely to trust scientists than Republicans, with Independents falling in the middle, but closer to Republicans.

These results are consistent with a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, which found:

public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

Public trust in science broken down by ideology. Illustration: Gauchat (2012), American Sociological Review.

This rising distrust of science is particularly high among higher-educated conservatives, in what’s been coined the “smart idiot” effect. Essentially, on complicated scientific subjects like climate change, more highly-educated ideologically-biased individuals possess more tools to fool themselves into denying the science and rejecting the conclusions of experts.

Chris Mooney has attributed these trends to the growth of the ‘religious right’ and other changes in the Republican Party:

Clearly, The Republican War on Science’s politicization thesis is being strongly validated—a thesis that attributes the problem to the growth of a modern conservative movement, its need to appease its core interest groups and constituencies (corporate America, conservative Christians), its need to have its own alternative expertise and journalism (think tanks, Fox, Limbaugh), and so on … as the “New Right” emerged in the U.S. in the wake of the cultural battles of the 1960s and 1970s, it mobilized strong forces of authoritarianism–e.g., psychological rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Indeed, authoritarians favor Donald Trump, whose supporters have considerable overlap with climate science denial. Robert Brulle’s research into the ‘dark money’ funding climate denial also helps explain the problem. The Republican Party has become increasingly dependent upon corporate funding and support, which is heavily skewed in the direction of climate denial. The near-total abandonment of party leadership on the climate issue has sent a signal to Republican voters – climate change isn’t a concern, and anyone saying otherwise is part of the hoax.

A glimmer of hope for Republicans

The growth of this anti-science strain of the Republican Party thus seems to stem from multiple sources: increased party reliance on the religious right and corporate interests, and the growth of a right-wing media echo chamber that feeds anti-science conspiratorial thinking.

However, there is good news.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1QF8SSh

There’s a widespread misconception about science denial – that on issues like the safety vaccines and genetically modified foods (GMOs), denial is found predominantly on the political left, mirroring the denial of evolution and climate science on the political right. This assumption has even been presented on The Daily Show, but it’s supported by precious little evidence. In fact, as Chris Mooney documented in great detail in 2014:

[The data] do not support the idea that vaccine denial is a special left-wing cause. As for GMOs, while resistance may be strongest on the far left, worries on this issue are quite prominent across the spectrum as well.

In neither case are these beliefs a mirror image, on the left, of climate change or evolution denial [on the political right].

New polling further debunks the science denial symmetry myth

A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”. There was little difference in answers across political affiliations – Democrats and Republicans were evenly split on the question of safe/unsafe, and Independents were more likely to consider GMOs unsafe. Gender and family income best predicted the answers, with men and higher-income individuals more likely to consider GMOs safe.

Those surveyed were also asked if the science supporting the safety of childhood vaccination is indisputable. In this case, Democrats were the most likely to answer yes (68%) rather than no (21%), followed by Independents (53% to 33%), with Republicans expressing the least confidence in the science supporting vaccine safety (47% yes, 42% no). Contrary to The Daily Show clip, these data show that vaccine science denial is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals.

A 2013 paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues investigated the links between ideology and science denial. The study similarly found no evidence of symmetrical science denial between liberals and conservatives on different issues. The authors concluded that conspiratorial thinking and free market support - both prevalent on the political right - were most strongly related to science denial:

Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested.

The study found that libertarian objections to government intrusion arising from mandatory vaccination programs explained the prevalence of anti-vaccine views among conservatives. They also found that those on the liberal side of the spectrum are more likely to distrust the pharmaceutical industry, and thus also oppose vaccinations, but as borne out by the YouGov poll data, this appears to be a smaller effect. On GMOs, the Lewandowsky study found no link between trust in science and ideology, again, consistent with the latest polling data.

Conservative trust in science has steadily declined

The YouGov poll also asked respondents “Generally speaking, how much trust do you have that what scientists say is accurate and reliable?”. There was little difference between various ethnicities, ages, geographical regions, or genders. However, Democrats were far more likely to trust scientists than Republicans, with Independents falling in the middle, but closer to Republicans.

These results are consistent with a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, which found:

public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

Public trust in science broken down by ideology. Illustration: Gauchat (2012), American Sociological Review.

This rising distrust of science is particularly high among higher-educated conservatives, in what’s been coined the “smart idiot” effect. Essentially, on complicated scientific subjects like climate change, more highly-educated ideologically-biased individuals possess more tools to fool themselves into denying the science and rejecting the conclusions of experts.

Chris Mooney has attributed these trends to the growth of the ‘religious right’ and other changes in the Republican Party:

Clearly, The Republican War on Science’s politicization thesis is being strongly validated—a thesis that attributes the problem to the growth of a modern conservative movement, its need to appease its core interest groups and constituencies (corporate America, conservative Christians), its need to have its own alternative expertise and journalism (think tanks, Fox, Limbaugh), and so on … as the “New Right” emerged in the U.S. in the wake of the cultural battles of the 1960s and 1970s, it mobilized strong forces of authoritarianism–e.g., psychological rigidity and closed-mindedness.

Indeed, authoritarians favor Donald Trump, whose supporters have considerable overlap with climate science denial. Robert Brulle’s research into the ‘dark money’ funding climate denial also helps explain the problem. The Republican Party has become increasingly dependent upon corporate funding and support, which is heavily skewed in the direction of climate denial. The near-total abandonment of party leadership on the climate issue has sent a signal to Republican voters – climate change isn’t a concern, and anyone saying otherwise is part of the hoax.

A glimmer of hope for Republicans

The growth of this anti-science strain of the Republican Party thus seems to stem from multiple sources: increased party reliance on the religious right and corporate interests, and the growth of a right-wing media echo chamber that feeds anti-science conspiratorial thinking.

However, there is good news.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1QF8SSh

Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016

The first three months of 2016 have now all been blow-out months, all rising above 1°C anomaly over the GISS mid-century baseline. This month came in at 1.28°C. In fact, all of the past 6 months have come in at an unprecedented >1°C over their baseline. In terms of our anomaly over our 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline, this clocks in at 1.528°C and we've now marked 13 months where the 12 month average has remained over 1°C. We first crossed that point in February of 2015. (Full size image.)

Reliable sources are telling me April 2016 is coming in about the same, around 1.2°C in the GISS data. The 2015/16 super El Nino is continuing to wane but we probably have a few more months of these extreme global anomalies to come before the surface station data begins to fall back to the long term mean trend line.

The Ocean Nino Index (ONI) data is still just off its peak of 2.3, coming in at 2.0 for JFM (Jan/Feb/Mar). The satellite temperature data tends to lag the ENSO by about 6 months, so we will probably see those data sets also remain near their peak for another 6 to 8 months. (Full size image.)

Much noise is being made about the expected la Nina that will follow this current El Nino. John Abraham has a good article in the Guardian explaining how the ENSO cycles operate much like a battery; gaining heat in the oceans and then releasing that heat to the atmosphere. Many contrarians seem to think the la Nina is going to somehow wipe out the El Nino, but that's far from the case. They are essentially grasping for straws. This super El Nino and the resulting surface and satellite temperature responses have been nothing short of spectacular, and very concerning.

You simply cannot look at the recent anomalies on my first chart (small grey diamonds) in relation to all the other anomalies and not be struck by how dramatically they standout. Sou at HotWhopper also has a really good post about this year's anomalies in the GISS record that's well worth a read. 

This is some crazy stuff, and we likely will have several more months of the same or similar coming.

Expect 2016 to be the third year in a row that we beat the record for global mean temperature.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N6Q7wx

The first three months of 2016 have now all been blow-out months, all rising above 1°C anomaly over the GISS mid-century baseline. This month came in at 1.28°C. In fact, all of the past 6 months have come in at an unprecedented >1°C over their baseline. In terms of our anomaly over our 1880-1909 preindustrial baseline, this clocks in at 1.528°C and we've now marked 13 months where the 12 month average has remained over 1°C. We first crossed that point in February of 2015. (Full size image.)

Reliable sources are telling me April 2016 is coming in about the same, around 1.2°C in the GISS data. The 2015/16 super El Nino is continuing to wane but we probably have a few more months of these extreme global anomalies to come before the surface station data begins to fall back to the long term mean trend line.

The Ocean Nino Index (ONI) data is still just off its peak of 2.3, coming in at 2.0 for JFM (Jan/Feb/Mar). The satellite temperature data tends to lag the ENSO by about 6 months, so we will probably see those data sets also remain near their peak for another 6 to 8 months. (Full size image.)

Much noise is being made about the expected la Nina that will follow this current El Nino. John Abraham has a good article in the Guardian explaining how the ENSO cycles operate much like a battery; gaining heat in the oceans and then releasing that heat to the atmosphere. Many contrarians seem to think the la Nina is going to somehow wipe out the El Nino, but that's far from the case. They are essentially grasping for straws. This super El Nino and the resulting surface and satellite temperature responses have been nothing short of spectacular, and very concerning.

You simply cannot look at the recent anomalies on my first chart (small grey diamonds) in relation to all the other anomalies and not be struck by how dramatically they standout. Sou at HotWhopper also has a really good post about this year's anomalies in the GISS record that's well worth a read. 

This is some crazy stuff, and we likely will have several more months of the same or similar coming.

Expect 2016 to be the third year in a row that we beat the record for global mean temperature.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1N6Q7wx

Army Researchers Explore Future Rotorcraft Technologies

By David McNally, ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army is moving ahead with research on potential new component-level technologies for future rotorcraft.

A team from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory completed the first-ever live-fire test of a rotor blade with individual blade control technology in mid-January.

Army research engineer Matthew L. Wilbur, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (left), explains the experiment to a team from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Air Portfolio at Aberdeen Proving Ground’s Phillips Army Airfield, March 4, 2016. (U.S. Army photo by Conrad Johnson)

Researchers fired three shots representative of typical ground fire on a 7-foot span, 10-inch chord rotor blade section with a 4-foot long Continuous Trailing Edge Flap, or CTEF, at ARL’s Survivability and Lethality Analysis Directorate’s Airbase Experimental Facility 6 and 7.

“The purpose of this program is to generate some limited ballistic data that could reduce risk and/or encourage Future Vertical Lift designers to consider CTEF technology,” said Brian G. Smith, ARL-SLAD aviation analysis team leader.

“We wanted to know what would happen to vehicle performance, or the rotor blade structural integrity, if it is hit by live fire in combat,” said Matthew L. Wilbur, ARL Vehicle Technology Directorate senior research engineer working at the NASA Langley Research Center. “This technology may provide reduced noise signature, reduced vibration, enhanced rotor performance and also offer a lighter and more efficient technology for flight control of the helicopter.”

The CTEF experiments are being conducted under the Science and Technology Red Teaming initiative sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, or ASA (ALT). This initiative provides early, in-depth vulnerability assessments of emerging technologies across laboratory, table-top, and live field environments.

Artist’s conception of a future vertical lift aircraft concept. (U.S. Army illustration)

Specifically, the live fire CTEF experiments explore the ballistic vulnerability of emerging individual blade control technologies and promote the development of components that are threat ready.

A team from ASA (ALT) visited researchers March 4 to observe another round of test firings and to speak with researchers.

“We want to understand how this technology might be applied to future aircraft,” said Todd M. Turner, ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio director. “Our goal is to design, develop and demonstrate the next generation of technologies that will provide unmatched vertical lift aircraft performance to meet future operation capabilities.”

Investments made by the ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio fund research in advanced air vehicles, aircraft and occupant survivability and manned/unmanned teaming.

The CTEF experiment represents a leap in technology from an active rotor standpoint, Wilbur said.

“The actuators used in the CTEF are not your typical motors — they are solid-state devices that change shape when an electric current is applied,” Wilbur said. “They work great, but if they are damaged they tend to short circuit, which means that the remaining healthy actuators no longer receive the power they need to function. To defeat this failure mode, we devised a method where each actuator has a small fuse in-line with its connection to the power source. For this particular test, that meant fabricating a blade in which each actuator was individually wired and the fuses were external to the blade at the point where the electrical power was distributed.”

Wilbur said in a follow-on activity they hope to start later this year, small surface-mount fuses will be embedded directly on the actuators, so that no outside electrical power distribution or extensive wiring will be necessary.

“The big active-rotor breakthrough associated with this was the fact that the insertion of the fuses in-line with each actuator worked perfectly,” he said. “We acquired high-speed blade performance data during each of the shots, and in each case it is clear that the blade continued to actuate with no degradation in performance other than that attributable to the loss of the damaged actuators.”

Funding to conduct this research is the enabling factor, he said.

“When we don’t have money, we do a lot of analysis and we come up with great ideas, but then at some point you have to start building some hardware and sometimes that gets a little harder to do when there’s not enough money flowing,” he said. “Without the Red Teaming funding this critical vulnerability assessment would not happen early in the applied research phase.”

Follow Armed with Science on Twitter!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1pOAy18

By David McNally, ARL Public Affairs

The U.S. Army is moving ahead with research on potential new component-level technologies for future rotorcraft.

A team from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory completed the first-ever live-fire test of a rotor blade with individual blade control technology in mid-January.

Army research engineer Matthew L. Wilbur, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (left), explains the experiment to a team from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Air Portfolio at Aberdeen Proving Ground’s Phillips Army Airfield, March 4, 2016. (U.S. Army photo by Conrad Johnson)

Researchers fired three shots representative of typical ground fire on a 7-foot span, 10-inch chord rotor blade section with a 4-foot long Continuous Trailing Edge Flap, or CTEF, at ARL’s Survivability and Lethality Analysis Directorate’s Airbase Experimental Facility 6 and 7.

“The purpose of this program is to generate some limited ballistic data that could reduce risk and/or encourage Future Vertical Lift designers to consider CTEF technology,” said Brian G. Smith, ARL-SLAD aviation analysis team leader.

“We wanted to know what would happen to vehicle performance, or the rotor blade structural integrity, if it is hit by live fire in combat,” said Matthew L. Wilbur, ARL Vehicle Technology Directorate senior research engineer working at the NASA Langley Research Center. “This technology may provide reduced noise signature, reduced vibration, enhanced rotor performance and also offer a lighter and more efficient technology for flight control of the helicopter.”

The CTEF experiments are being conducted under the Science and Technology Red Teaming initiative sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, or ASA (ALT). This initiative provides early, in-depth vulnerability assessments of emerging technologies across laboratory, table-top, and live field environments.

Artist’s conception of a future vertical lift aircraft concept. (U.S. Army illustration)

Specifically, the live fire CTEF experiments explore the ballistic vulnerability of emerging individual blade control technologies and promote the development of components that are threat ready.

A team from ASA (ALT) visited researchers March 4 to observe another round of test firings and to speak with researchers.

“We want to understand how this technology might be applied to future aircraft,” said Todd M. Turner, ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio director. “Our goal is to design, develop and demonstrate the next generation of technologies that will provide unmatched vertical lift aircraft performance to meet future operation capabilities.”

Investments made by the ASA (ALT) Air Portfolio fund research in advanced air vehicles, aircraft and occupant survivability and manned/unmanned teaming.

The CTEF experiment represents a leap in technology from an active rotor standpoint, Wilbur said.

“The actuators used in the CTEF are not your typical motors — they are solid-state devices that change shape when an electric current is applied,” Wilbur said. “They work great, but if they are damaged they tend to short circuit, which means that the remaining healthy actuators no longer receive the power they need to function. To defeat this failure mode, we devised a method where each actuator has a small fuse in-line with its connection to the power source. For this particular test, that meant fabricating a blade in which each actuator was individually wired and the fuses were external to the blade at the point where the electrical power was distributed.”

Wilbur said in a follow-on activity they hope to start later this year, small surface-mount fuses will be embedded directly on the actuators, so that no outside electrical power distribution or extensive wiring will be necessary.

“The big active-rotor breakthrough associated with this was the fact that the insertion of the fuses in-line with each actuator worked perfectly,” he said. “We acquired high-speed blade performance data during each of the shots, and in each case it is clear that the blade continued to actuate with no degradation in performance other than that attributable to the loss of the damaged actuators.”

Funding to conduct this research is the enabling factor, he said.

“When we don’t have money, we do a lot of analysis and we come up with great ideas, but then at some point you have to start building some hardware and sometimes that gets a little harder to do when there’s not enough money flowing,” he said. “Without the Red Teaming funding this critical vulnerability assessment would not happen early in the applied research phase.”

Follow Armed with Science on Twitter!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1pOAy18

Don’t Flush! Why Your Drug Disposal Method Matters

By Sara Ernst

Have you ever participated in a drug take-back program?  If not, what do you typically do with leftover medications after you defeat a bacterial infection or find an old bottle of Tylenol?  Many people may flush unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals down the toilet or throw them in the trash, but those methods can actually harm our environment.

When flushed or thrown-out, these drugs can end up in our coastal ecosystems; and all the chemicals in those little pills that were once working together to make us feel better, are now dissolving in our waterways where they can negatively impact aquatic animals.

Scientists throughout EPA continue to evaluate the potential toxicity of different drugs to determine what specific effects they have on aquatic wildlife, and to develop new ways to detect if an organism has been exposed to those drugs.

I recently spoke with EPA scientists Bushra Khan and Theresa Johnston to learn about some of the specific effects they have observed in their research.

Bushra talked to me about the effects that beta blockers (medication prescribed to patients with high blood pressure or chest pain) have on shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels.  She explained that when shellfish become exposed to beta blockers, it can interfere with the organism’s physiological pathways, cellular integrity, and their growth and development.

Theresa explained that drugs that are designed to disrupt our endocrine system, like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies, also disrupt the endocrine system of fish and other aquatic organisms. EPA scientists have found that hormones called progestins, often used in oral contraceptives, affect the number of eggs that female cunner fish produce.  They also interfere with the way hormones function within females and males.

By improperly disposing of pharmaceuticals, we further contribute to the amount of chemical exposure aquatic animals are subjected to, and potentially threaten the population sustainability of shellfish, fish, and other aquatic animals.

The best thing you can do to help lessen the problem is to utilize Drug Take-Back Programs.  These programs allow you to drop off any unwanted medications at a designated facility where the drugs will then be disposed of in a safe and environmentally-conscious manner.

April 30^th is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Take-Back Day.  All over the country there will be facilities accepting any unwanted or expired medications from 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM – it is the perfect opportunity to clean out your medicine cabinet while simultaneously helping to protect aquatic animals and their environment from chemical exposure!

Visit the National Take Back Initiative Collection Site Search page to find a participating collection site near you, and encourage your friends and family to join.

About the Author:  Sara Ernst is an Oak Ridge Associated Universities contractor and works as the Science Communications Specialist in the Atlantic Ecology Division of EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/26AFSXs

By Sara Ernst

Have you ever participated in a drug take-back program?  If not, what do you typically do with leftover medications after you defeat a bacterial infection or find an old bottle of Tylenol?  Many people may flush unwanted or expired pharmaceuticals down the toilet or throw them in the trash, but those methods can actually harm our environment.

When flushed or thrown-out, these drugs can end up in our coastal ecosystems; and all the chemicals in those little pills that were once working together to make us feel better, are now dissolving in our waterways where they can negatively impact aquatic animals.

Scientists throughout EPA continue to evaluate the potential toxicity of different drugs to determine what specific effects they have on aquatic wildlife, and to develop new ways to detect if an organism has been exposed to those drugs.

I recently spoke with EPA scientists Bushra Khan and Theresa Johnston to learn about some of the specific effects they have observed in their research.

Bushra talked to me about the effects that beta blockers (medication prescribed to patients with high blood pressure or chest pain) have on shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels.  She explained that when shellfish become exposed to beta blockers, it can interfere with the organism’s physiological pathways, cellular integrity, and their growth and development.

Theresa explained that drugs that are designed to disrupt our endocrine system, like oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapies, also disrupt the endocrine system of fish and other aquatic organisms. EPA scientists have found that hormones called progestins, often used in oral contraceptives, affect the number of eggs that female cunner fish produce.  They also interfere with the way hormones function within females and males.

By improperly disposing of pharmaceuticals, we further contribute to the amount of chemical exposure aquatic animals are subjected to, and potentially threaten the population sustainability of shellfish, fish, and other aquatic animals.

The best thing you can do to help lessen the problem is to utilize Drug Take-Back Programs.  These programs allow you to drop off any unwanted medications at a designated facility where the drugs will then be disposed of in a safe and environmentally-conscious manner.

April 30^th is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Take-Back Day.  All over the country there will be facilities accepting any unwanted or expired medications from 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM – it is the perfect opportunity to clean out your medicine cabinet while simultaneously helping to protect aquatic animals and their environment from chemical exposure!

Visit the National Take Back Initiative Collection Site Search page to find a participating collection site near you, and encourage your friends and family to join.

About the Author:  Sara Ernst is an Oak Ridge Associated Universities contractor and works as the Science Communications Specialist in the Atlantic Ecology Division of EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/26AFSXs

This Spring, Show How You Care About the Air

By Jenny Noonan

What do our kids need to know about air quality? How can we teach them about the links between health and air pollution?  With a pre-kindergartener and a 3^rd grader at home, my husband and I are always looking for ways to engage them about the fragility and resilience of the natural world. My job at EPA helps me do that and Asthma Awareness Month and Air Quality Awareness Week (May 2-6, 2016) give me a focus each spring.

This year’s Air Quality Awareness Week theme, Show How You Care About the Air, is a great opportunity to take to social media to share the importance of clean air to my family and yours.

For 10 years, we have sought out state and local partnerships to raise awareness about the connections between air quality and health. We’re highlighting events sponsored by our partners on our website. Show How You Care About the Air is a coordinated theme with a special focus each day of the week, including:

Monday, May 2                 Highlighting State and Local Events

Tuesday, May 3                 Asthma and Air Quality (World Asthma Day)

Wednesday, May 4            Air Quality Around the World

Thursday, May 5               Air Quality Trends

Friday, May 6                    Citizen Science

As part of Asthma Awareness Month, we will be sponsoring two Twitter chats to increase awareness. The first will discuss topics such as the environmental triggers of asthma – both indoors and out – and how you can develop a personal asthma plan to help manage these triggers. You can follow along or participate in this chat, co-sponsored with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on May 3, from 2-3 pm by following #AsthmaChat, or leave a question below.

We will also be hosting a Twitter chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5, from 1-2 pm. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health, and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat, or leave a question below.

Finally, everyone has an opportunity to take a selfie or other photo showing how you care about the air during Air Quality Awareness Week 2016 and share it on the AirNow Facebook page.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1T9St9Z

By Jenny Noonan

What do our kids need to know about air quality? How can we teach them about the links between health and air pollution?  With a pre-kindergartener and a 3^rd grader at home, my husband and I are always looking for ways to engage them about the fragility and resilience of the natural world. My job at EPA helps me do that and Asthma Awareness Month and Air Quality Awareness Week (May 2-6, 2016) give me a focus each spring.

This year’s Air Quality Awareness Week theme, Show How You Care About the Air, is a great opportunity to take to social media to share the importance of clean air to my family and yours.

For 10 years, we have sought out state and local partnerships to raise awareness about the connections between air quality and health. We’re highlighting events sponsored by our partners on our website. Show How You Care About the Air is a coordinated theme with a special focus each day of the week, including:

Monday, May 2                 Highlighting State and Local Events

Tuesday, May 3                 Asthma and Air Quality (World Asthma Day)

Wednesday, May 4            Air Quality Around the World

Thursday, May 5               Air Quality Trends

Friday, May 6                    Citizen Science

As part of Asthma Awareness Month, we will be sponsoring two Twitter chats to increase awareness. The first will discuss topics such as the environmental triggers of asthma – both indoors and out – and how you can develop a personal asthma plan to help manage these triggers. You can follow along or participate in this chat, co-sponsored with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on May 3, from 2-3 pm by following #AsthmaChat, or leave a question below.

We will also be hosting a Twitter chat with CDC on air quality issues on May 5, from 1-2 pm. This chat will talk about topics like the impacts of air pollution on human health, and how you can use air quality tools to reduce your exposure to pollution. Join the conversation at #AirQualityChat, or leave a question below.

Finally, everyone has an opportunity to take a selfie or other photo showing how you care about the air during Air Quality Awareness Week 2016 and share it on the AirNow Facebook page.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1T9St9Z