0683: "Science Montage"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: "Science Montage" Discussion

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:07 pm UTC

I like the comic, but I thought that it wasn't science until someone dramatically took off their shades?

User avatar
meat.paste
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

Re: "Science Montage" Discussion

Postby meat.paste » Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:05 pm UTC

So, why would (what looks like) a centrifuge tell you anything about the elemental composition? They should have been using a graphite furnace AA!

Also, you can tell it's not a new decade yet because a plane on a treadmill will still take off.
Huh? What?

User avatar
nomadluap
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:22 pm UTC

Re: "Science Montage" Discussion

Postby nomadluap » Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:26 pm UTC

meat.paste wrote:So, why would (what looks like) a centrifuge tell you anything about the elemental composition? They should have been using a graphite furnace AA!

Also, you can tell it's not a new decade yet because a plane on a treadmill will still take off.


Well, that's what they use in all the sciencey type shows.
I'm thinking in a way...
Spoiler:
that isn't usually how I think.

User avatar
Iridos
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:58 am UTC

Re: "Science Montage" Discussion

Postby Iridos » Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

meat.paste wrote:So, why would (what looks like) a centrifuge tell you anything about the elemental composition? They should have been using a graphite furnace AA!


I thought it was a stirrer... but apart from that... my thought exactly...
"Barium? Radium? Why don't they use an AAS?!?"
This looks a bit like / could be classical qualitative inorganic analysis ("Trennungsgang"), which these days is essentially useful for nothing but still rather popular in first-year undergraduate labs.

Aw, let's just backdate the comic to 1950 or so... and we'll be ok.

Of course, on the left side... if it's chemistry, you'll need lots of weird glassware (check) filled with colored solutions in it, nevermind you practially have blue/green/red solutions ever...

I.

User avatar
superglucose
hermaj's new favourite
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:59 am UTC
Location: Domain of Azura
Contact:

Re: 0683: "Science Montage"

Postby superglucose » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:37 pm UTC

What I always liked about the show CSI is they pretty much represented this correctly (or at least as right as you could in a hour long episode). Grisom's experiments were always pretty much "Put bugs in similar position, turn on video camera, occasionally check corpse." Paint analysis was "Stick flecks in GCMS, wait for it to finish running, check against databse." I mean, it's TV so certain compromises have to be made (no one wants a TV show episode that resolves its main plot over the course of five years), but the methods are at least accurate.
Image

jgh
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

Re: "Science Montage" Discussion

Postby jgh » Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:31 pm UTC

paulmccabe87 wrote:The first year of the Gregorian calendar is 1AD. The end of the first decade (definition number 1) of that calendar is ten years after the first year, which is 11AD.

Err. That's a period of 11 years. By your definition that makes the second decade run from 12AD to 22AD, the third decade run from 23AD to 33AD.

Why can people not understand the concept of counting? The first decade of any calendar is the, duh, first year of that calendar to a point ten years later, ie in the calendar we use today 0001-01-01 to 0010-12-31. The second decade is, duh, the one following the first decade, ie in the current calendar 0011-01-01 to 0020-12-31. Similarly the first century of any calendar runs from, duh, the first year to a point 100 years later, ie in the calendar we use 0001-01-01 to 0100-12-31, and ad sequentium.

Unless you're going to hop into your time machine and get Dennis the Short to change his calendar from the XXXth year to year XXX (and incidently, tell him he was about four years out with his starting point), nothing is going to change the fundamental point that we are currently in the 2011th year of our calendar, that 2011 is in the 21st century, and that 2011 is in the 2nd decade of that century.

You can't go all "oh but we count from zero nowadays", because we don't - we count years from 1. You need a time machine to change that, the result of which would mean that instead of this year being the 2011th year of our calendar, it would become year number 2010, AND THIS WOULD STILL BE THE FIRST YEAR OF THE CURRENT DECADE!.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests