Waterproof Electricity

Researchers at Oxford University proudly announced the development and successful testing of a new material which will conduct electricity even when underwater. The so-called 'waterproof electricity' is the result of a new type of plastic which will conduct an electric current but prevents any "leakage" of electric charges into the water.  Their findings, published in Materials Journal, mark a significant point in global materials development.

Historically, water has always been the biggest enemy of electrical devices. The only way to protect devices which are to be used underwater has been to physically coat them in a waterproof and airtight layer, leading to cumbersome and clunky devices, and as they to be operated underwater, this additional layer has made them particularly difficult to use.

Professor David Armstrong, the team leader at Oxford, explained, "As per recent information, we have been able to conduct electricity through our new material without any loss of current to the surrounding water. Clearly this opens up all kinds of applications, from underwater research to making domestic mobile devices waterproof." 

Dr Emily Turner, a senior researcher on the team, added, "The potential for this material is immense. We are looking at applications in underwater robotics, marine exploration, and even in everyday consumer electronics. The ability to have devices that are both electrically conductive and waterproof could revolutionize many industries."

Professor Mauro Pasta, another key researcher, emphasized the collaborative effort: "This project has been a true interdisciplinary endeavor, combining expertise from materials science, chemistry, and electrical engineering. The synergy between these fields has been crucial in achieving this breakthrough."

The research for the new polymer is based on PTFE (Teflon) which is water resistant, while having additional atom chains which enable it to conduct electricity.  Known as Fluoro-Ortho-Oxy Limonene, it's a highly oxygenated organic molecule formed from the oxidation of limonene. It features a unique structure that includes both closed-shell and open-shell peroxy radicals, which contribute to its exceptional properties.  Part of its structure is shown below. Its full chemical structure and further details will be released in an online article at noon today.

If you'd like to read more of my Chemistry articles, I can recommend my explanation of how I got into online A/B testing as a Chemistry graduate.

If this sounds like something out of Star Trek, there's probably a good reason for it.  

Calculating the tetrahedral bond angle

Calculating the Tetrahedral Bond Angle

Every Chemistry textbook which covers molecular shapes will state with utmost authority that the bond angle in tetrahedral molecules is 109.5 degrees. Methane (CH4) is frequently quoted as the example, shown to be completely symmetrical and tetrahedral. And then the 109.5 degrees.  There's no proof given (after all, Chemistry textbooks aren't dealing with geometry, and there's no need to show something just for the sake of mathematical proof - rightly, the content is all about reactivity and structure).  However, the lack of proof has bugged me on-and-off for about 20 years, and recently I decided it was time to do something about it and prove it for myself.

There are various websites showing the geometry of a tetrahedron and how it relates to a cube, and those sites use the relationship between a cube and a tetrahedron in order to calculate the angle, but I'm going to demonstrate an alternative proof using solely the properties of a tetrahedron  - its symmetry and its equilateral triangular faces.

To start with, calculate the horizontal distance from one of the vertices to the centre of the opposite triangular face (the point directly below the central 'atom').  In this diagram, E is the top corner, D is the central "atom" (representing the centre of the tetrahedron) and C is the point directly below D, such that CDE is a straight line, and C is the centre of the shaded face (the base).

This gives a large right-angled triangle ACE, where the hypotenuse is one edge of the tetrahedron (length AE = l); one side is the line we'll be calculating (length AC, using the triangle ABC); and the third, CE, is the line extending from the top of the tetrahedron through the central atom down to the centre of the base.

In triangle ABC, length AB = l/2, angle A is 30 degrees, angle B is 90 degrees.  We need to calculate length AC:

cos 30 = l/2 / AC
AC = l /2 cos 30

Since we have two sides and an angle of a right-angled triangle, we can determine the other two angles; we're primarily interested in the angle at the top, labelled α.

sin α = AC / l

And as we know that AC = 1 / 2 cos 30 this simplifies to

sin α = 1 / (2 cos 30)

Evaluating:  1 / (2 cos 30) = 0.5773

sin α = 0.5773
α = 35.26 degrees.

Looking now at the triangle ADE which contains the tetrahedral bond angle at D:  the bond angle D can be calculating through symmetry, since ADE is an isosceles triangle.

D = 180 - (2*35.26) = 109.47 degrees, as we've been told all along.

QED

If you find this post helpful, you may also be interested in:

Calculating the packing density of closely-packed spheres
Calculating the packing density of closely-packed circles
How a Chemistry graduate got into online A/B testing

How did a Chemistry Graduate get into Online Testing?

When people examine my CV, they are often intrigued by how a graduate specialising in chemistry transferred into web analytics, and into online testing and optimisation.  Surely there's nothing in common between the two?

I am at a slight disadvantage - after all, I can't exactly say that I always wanted to go into website analysis when I was younger.  No; I was quite happy playing on my home computer, an Acorn Electron with its 32KB of RAM and 8-bit processor running at 1MHz, and the internet hadn't been invented yet.  You needed to buy an external interface just to connect it to a temperature gauge or control an electrical circuit - we certainly weren't talking about the 'internet of things'.  But at school, I was good at maths, and particularly good at science which was something I especially enjoyed.  I carried on my studies, specialising in maths, chemistry and physics, pursuing them further at university.  Along the way, I bought my first PC - a 286 with 640KB memory, then upgraded to a 486SX 25MHz with 2MB RAM, which was enough to support my scientific studies, and enabled me to start accessing the information superhighway.

Nearly twenty years later, I'm now an established web optimization professional, but I still have my interest in science, and in particular chemistry.  Earlier this week, I was reading through a chemistry textbook (yes, it's still that level of interest), and found this interesting passage on experimental method.  It may not seem immediately relevant, but substitute "online testing" or "online optimisation" for Chemistry, and read on.

Despite what some theoreticians would have us believe, chemistry is founded on experimental work.   An investigative sequence begins with a hypothesis which is tested by experiment and, on the basis of the observed results, is ratified, modified or discarded.   At every stage of this process, the accurate and unbiased recording of results is crucial to success.  However, whilst it is true that such rational analysis can lead the scientist towards his goal, this happy sequence of events occurs much less frequently than many would care to admit. 

I'm sure you can see how the practice and thought processes behind chemical experiments translates into care and planning for online testing.  I've been blogging about valid hypotheses and tests for years now - clearly the scientific thinking in me successfully made the journey from the lab to the website.  And the comment that the "happy sequence of experiment winners happen less frequently than many would care to admit" is particularly pertinent, and I would have to agree with it (although I wouldn't like to admit it).  Be honest, how many of your tests win?  After all, we're not doing experimental research purely for academic purposes - we're trying to make money, and our jobs are to get winners implemented and make money for our companies (while upholding our reputations as subject-matter experts).

The textbook continues...

Having made the all important experimental observations, transmitting this information clearly to other workers in the field is of equal importance.   The record of your observations must be made in such a manner that others as well as yourself can repeat the work at a later stage.   Omission of a small detail, such as the degree of purity of a particular reagent, can often render a procedure irreproducible, invalidating your claims and leaving you exposed to criticism.   The scientific community is rightly suspicious of results which can only be obtained in the hands of one particular worker!

The terminology is quite subject-specific here, but with a little translation, you can see how this also applies to online testing.  In the scientific world, there's a far greater emphasis on sharing results with peers - in industry, we tend to keep our major winners to ourselves, unless we're writing case studies (and ask yourself why do we read case studies anyway?) or presenting at conferences.  But when we do write or publish our results, it's important that we do explain exactly how we achieved that massive 197% lift in conversion - otherwise we'll end up  "invalidating our claims and leaving us exposed to criticism.  The scientific community [and the online community even moreso] is rightly suspicious of results which can only be obtained in the hands of one particular worker!"  Isn't that the truth?

Having faced rigorous scrutiny and peer review of my work in a laboratory, I know how to address questions about the performance of my online tests.   Working with online traffic is far safer than handling hazardous chemicals, but the effects of publishing spurious or inaccurate results are equally damaging to an online marketer or a laboratory-based chemist.  Online and offline scientists alike have to be thoughtful in their experimental practice, rigorous in their analysis and transparent in their methodology and calculations.  

Excerpts taken from Experimental Organic Chemistry: Principles and Practice by L M Harwood and C J Moody, published by Blackwell Scientific Publications in 1989 and reprinted in 1990.

Chemistry Dictionary: Adrenaline (epinephrine)

Adrenaline (epinephrine)

Adrenaline is a hormone, which is a chemical messenger in the body.  When the body is panicked, adrenaline is released into the bloodstream, and it acts on many parts of the body.  It tells the liver to release glucose (sugar) into the bloodstream; it tells the heart to pump faster, and tells the airways to open to get more air into the lungs and more oxygen into the bloodstream.  This is called the ‘fight or flight’ response, as the body prepares to respond to a perceived threat.

The shape of the adrenaline molecule fits into specific ‘receptors’, called adrenergic receptors, found on the cells in the heart, liver and lungs (and many other organs too), and when the adrenaline molecule fits into one of these receptors, it activates the receptor and tells the organs (through further messages) to respond in their own specific way.

Adrenaline was first artificially synthesised in 1904, and since then has become a common treatment for anaphylactic shock. It can be quickly administered to people showing signs of severe allergic reactions, and some people with known severe allergies carry epinephrine auto-injectors in case of an emergency.  Adrenaline is also one of the main drugs used to treat patients who have a low cardiac output — the amount of blood the heart pumps — and cardiac arrest. It can stimulate the muscle and increases the person's heart rate.

It's also a useful starting point for many drugs, because it has a wide range of effects on the body.  For example, its effect on the lungs means that a variation on adrenaline can be used to treat asthma.  One particularly successful drug is salbutamol, and the salbutamol molecule has a lot in common with adrenaline.

Adrenaline

Salbutamol

The differences between salbutamol and adrenaline make salmeterol more "specific" - in other words, salmeterol is designed (or adapted) to make it target just the soft tissue in the lungs and wind-pipe, and affect the heart less strongly.  If you think of adrenaline as a super key that can open many doors, than salbutamol is an adapted key that's only able to open some doors.


You may recall diagrams such as these from from school chemistry classes - chemicals and molecules being illustrated by a series of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms joined together by little lines.  The manufacturers of pharmaceutical compounds pay very close attention to these diagrams.  After all, the difference between a successful drug and a dangerous, toxic or addictive one is often just a hydrogen atom here, a carbon atom there.  Any drug which is released and authorised for sale in the UK has gone through rigorous checking to ensure that it is effective and that any side effects are also known.  Adrenaline is an ideal starting point for drugs, given its widespread effect on the human body; however, it's possible to begin with other starting points, and look to achieve different effects.

Sadly, in the UK, there has recently been an explosion of compounds which mimic the effects of popular illegal drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis, but are chemically different enough to avoid being illegal.  Keeping up with the new highs is difficult. Chemical compounds are effectively legal until they are banned, which means the UK Government has no choice but to be reactive once a chemical hits the market, and must move switfly to determine if it is legal.  A recent report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, stated that one new legal high was being “discovered” every week in 2011. Additionally, the number of online shops offering at least one psychoactive substance rose from 314 in 2011 to 690 in 2012.

Chemistry moleculemolecule

Blood Sweat and Tears (GlaxoSmithKline)

It only seems fair that as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) continue to produce ever more images for their anti-doping advertising campaign, that I should try to keep up with them.

Their latest and final range, "Blood, Sweat and Tears," now features with two Olympic gold medal winners, Beth Tweddle and Sophie Troiano.  GSK have even put them on their own Flickr site. They've drawn some criticism (in fact, the whole range has) for their inaccurate usage of chemistry, and in some cases, totally nonsensical chemistry in their advertising, but I'm still happy to keep parodying them, in an affectionate but not pedantic way.   Having said that, it does seem strange that a multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company hasn't bothered to display its scientific knowledge in its advertising, and has left the science to a group of non-scientific marketing folks.

It is worth pointing out that GSK is the Official Laboratory Services Provider for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, but that they are not actually carrying out the testing - just providing the facilities. These labs, facilities and equipment are provided to enable expert analysts from King's College to independently operate a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited laboratory during the Olympic Games.

After that brief aside, here is what will probably be my final poster, celebrating the vast majority of non-Olympians who also believe in training, running and playing sports in a doping-free environment.  It's meant to be humorous, not political, and I'm not trying to promote or discredit any manufacturers of anything in particular (such as 'high-energy' soft drinks).

Chemistry Advertising: GlaxoSmithKline Chemistry Again

I'd like to follow up on my previous post about how GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have recently been promoting their anti-doping testing technology for the Olympic games.  They've done this with some very impressive 'chemistry' adverts featuring British athletes. 

 Now that the athletes are winning medals, they've changed the message to one about 'blood, sweat and tears', see below (taken from GSK's FB page) :

After my first set of chemistry images based on GlaxoSmithKline's advertis, I think it's only fair that I try to keep pace with these new developments, so I've produced a few more of my own.  They're designed to recognise those of us who aren't Olympic standard athletes, but who still believe in drug-free sports and improving our performances through hard work and practice.  What do you think?

Chemistry Advertising: Glaxo Smith Kline

A different slant on Chemistry cartoons this time.  I've recently noticed (with enjoyment) that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) have recently been promoting their anti-doping testing technology for the Olympic games.  They've done this with some very impressive 'chemistry' adverts featuring British athletes (some of them medal winners).  GSK have put these on their Facebook page, and so I've borrowed them, and produced some of my own alternatives.


Mine aren't meant to be offensive, just comical parodies.  I'm not intending to criticise GSK, just borrow their 'chemical plus picture' motif.  I'm not even going to criticise the chemistry of the 'molecules' they've designed... I'm just going to smile and participate in the chemistry advertising as well.


Here are GSK's (taken from their FB page) :

And here, just to raise a smile for the 'every man' who also doesn't believe in taking drugs to enhance his performance, are mine.

What do you think?

Chemistry Apparatus Cartoon: The Boiling Tube

I realise that my series of Chemistry Apparatus Cartoons has a large number of tubes in it.  But, to be fair, chemistry is full of tubes.  This is the last one in my series - I have two more non-tubes to follow.  After the measuring cylinder, I thought it was time to go back to the tubes:  here he is - the boiling tube.

Next time?  I only have two more in the series (unless inspiration hits me again), but we're not scraping the bottom of the barrel yet!

So far, the series of Chemistry cartoons has included The Test Tube, The Side-Arm Test Tube, The Delivery Tube, the beaker and The Measuring Cylinder.  I do have a 'formal' Chemistry background (I completed a Natural Sciences degree at Cambridge University) and have also written some more serious articles on Chemistry, including how I transferred from Chemistry to a career in online web analytics.