Category Archives: Soapbox

Napping, releasing the soul and brain maintenance

Decorative photograph of painting: The Punishment of Lust.I read recently about the renovation of a small Parisian flat into a single office for the writer, Simon Kuper (How I made my perfect office).  The furniture included a sofa by the window for his post-lunch 15-minute nap (20 minutes on a bad day).  There was a brief period when I regularly had a nap in my office in the middle of day.  Now, I regularly nap at the weekend in the afternoon, or a weekday in the early evening after dinner.  Research has found short daytime naps improve cognitive performance (Lovato & Lin, 2010) and may help to preserve brain health by slowing the rate at which the brain shrinks with age (Paz et al, 2023).  So, short naps are probably good for you, though longer naps have been associated with reductions in cognition, the ability to think and form memories (Li et al, 2016) as well as increased blood pressure (Vizmanos et al, 2023).  In his outstanding novel, ‘The Salt of the Earth‘, Jozef Wittlin describes sleep as releasing or giving freedom to the soul.  Perhaps it is the wandering of the soul that we sometime recall as dreams.  On a more sinister note, sleep is described as practice for death by Ernesto Sabato in his novel, ‘On Heroes and Tombs‘, when presumably our soul is released forever to drift to Nirvana as in Giovanni Segantini’s painting ‘The punishment of lust’ in which the souls of neglectful mothers are shown floating towards the mountains representing Nirvana, a Buddhist heaven.  In the light of the inevitability of death, I quite like the idea that we can practice for it; however, I prefer to think of naps preserving my aging brain and improving my cognition.

Image: photograph of ‘The punishment of lust’ by Giovanni Segantini in the Walker Gallery, Liverpool.

Entropy has taken its toll

Decorative imageI am on vacation so this is the third in a series of ‘reprints’ from my archive of more than 570 posts.  It was published in July 2014 under title ‘Engineering archaeology‘.  Entropy has done its bit and repainting of our railings is long overdue.

Last week I spent a relaxing day painting the old railings in front of our house. Since I am not a painter and decorator by trade the end result is not perfect but they look much better in shiny black than two-tone rust and matt black.   One of the fleurs de lis on our railings had been knocked off when either we moved in or the previous occupiers moved out.  It’s a way of life being an engineer, so the shape of the failure surface on the broken railing was bugging me while I was painting the rest.  You would expect wrought iron railings to be ductile, i.e. to deform significantly prior to fracture, and to have a high tensile strength.  Wrought iron’s properties are derived from its very low carbon content (less than 0.25%) and the presence of fibrous slag impurities (typically about 2%), which almost make it a composite material.  It was historically used for railings and gates.  However, my broken railing had exhibited almost no deformation prior to fracture, i.e. it was a brittle failure, and the fleur de lis had broken in half on impact with the stone flags.  So on one of the rainy days last week, when I couldn’t paint outside, I did a little bit of historical research and discovered that in the late 1790s and early 1800s, which is when our house was built, cast iron started to be used for railings.  Cast iron has a high carbon content, typically 2 to 4%, and also contains silicon at between 1 and 3% by weight.  Cast iron is brittle, i.e. it shows almost no deformation prior to fracture, so the failure surface tends be to flat and smooth just like in my fleur de lis.

This seems like a nice interdisciplinary, if not everyday, engineering example.  It would be vandalism to go around breaking iron railings in front of old buildings.  So, if you want Everyday Engineering Examples of ductile and brittle behaviour, then visit a junk shop and buy an old china dinner plate and a set of cutlery.  The ceramic of the china plate is brittle and will fracture without deformation – have some fun and break one!  The stainless steel of the fork and spoon is ductile and can be easily bent, i.e. it is easy to introduce large deformation, in this case permanent or plastic deformation, prior to failure.  In fact you will probably have to bend the fork back and forth repeatedly before it will snap with each bending action introducing additional damage.

The more curious will be wondering why some materials are ductile and others brittle.  The answer is associated with their microstructures, which in turn is dependent on their constituents, as hinted above.  However, I am not going to venture into material science to explain the details.  I have probably already given materials scientists enough to complain about because my Everyday Engineering Examples are not directly analogous at the microstructural level to wrought iron and cast iron but they are more fun.

Immeasurable productivity?

Decorative image of a poppy flowerThis is the second in a series of ‘reprints’ from my archive of posts.  I will be back with new posts in a few weeks refreshed after my vacation.  This post was first published in November 2013 under the title ‘Productive cheating‘.

I cut out a Dilbert cartoon from the New York Times a few weeks ago that I found amusing and shared it with my new Head of School.  Dilbert informs his boss that he will be taking advantage of the new unlimited vacation policy by being away for 200 days in the coming year but will still double his productivity.  His boss replies that there is no way to measure productivity for engineers.

Of course, bosses are very interested in measuring productivity and marketing executives like to brag about the productivity or efficiency of whatever it is they are selling.  Engineers know that it is easy to cheat on measures of productivity and efficiency, for instance, by carefully drawing the boundaries of the system to exclude some inputs or some wasteful outputs [see my post on ‘Drawing Boundaries’ on December 19th, 2012 ].  So claims of productivity or efficiency that sound too good to be true probably aren’t what they seem.

Also in the New York Times [on October 15th, 2013] Mark Bittman discussed the productivity of the two food production systems found in the world, i.e. industrial agriculture and one based on small landholders, what the ETC group refers to as peasant food webs.  He reports that the industrial food chain uses 70% of agricultural resources to provide 30% of the world’s food while peasant farming produces the remaining 70% with 30% of the resources.  The issue is not that industrial agriculture’s claims for productivity in terms of yields per acre are wrong but that the industry measures the wrong quantity.  Efficiency is defined as desired output divided by required input [see my post entitled ‘National efficiency‘ on May 29th, 2013].  In this case the required output is people fed not crop yield and a huge percentage of the yield from industrial agriculture never makes to people’s mouths [see my post entitled ‘Food waste’ on January 23rd, 2013].

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/how-to-feed-the-world.html?ref=markbittman&_r=0

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/poster-who-will-feed-us-industrial-food-chain-or-peasant-food-webs

Update on position of AI on hype curve: it cannot dream

Decorative image of a flowerIt would appear that I was wrong in 2020 when I suggested that artificial intelligence was near the top of its hype curve [see ‘Where is AI on the hype curve?‘ on August 12th, 2020].  In the past few months the hype has reached new levels.  Initially, there were warnings about the imminent takeover of global society by artificial intelligence; however, recently the pendulum has swung back towards a more measured concern that the nature of many jobs will be changed by artificial intelligence with some jobs disappearing and others being created.  I believe that the bottom-line is that while terrific advances have been made with large language models, such as ChatGPT, artificial intelligence is artificial but it is not intelligent [see ‘Inducing chatbots to write nonsense‘ on February 15th, 2023].  It cannot dream.  It is not creative or inventive, largely because it is very powerful applied statistics which needs data based on what has happened or been produced already.  So, if you are involved in solving mysteries (ill-defined, vague and indeterminate problems) rather than puzzles [see ‘Puzzles and mysteries‘ on November 25th, 2020] then you are unlikely to be replaced by artificial intelligence in the foreseeable future [see ‘When will you be replaced by a computer?‘ on November 20th, 2019].  Not that you should trust my predictions of the future! [see ‘Predicting the future through holistic awareness‘ on January 6th, 2021]