Science - In Class Experience

For my very last science journal, I thought I would take some time to discuss the in class experience for the entire science course. Although there is still an entire week left in the course and we still have to cover climate change, I thought this would be a great opportunity to express what I liked and disliked about the course.

The grade 10 science curriculum is divided into four units, chemistry, biology, optics and climate change. Unfortunately, I cannot quite speak for climate change just yet as we have only had one very short lesson on the topic. I have already talked about biology and optics in other journals, but I will address them here again.  

Every unit had their pros and cons. My favourite unit in this entire course was chemistry, purely on the fact that I didn’t have to remember very much. I just used my head for most questions and did very well on all of my tests. The same goes for optics, but I had to remember quite a bit of information in optics, which is completely fine. Unfortunately, biology was all memorization and I felt like the unit dragged on. I didn’t like having to memorize every part of the systems that we learned about, and exactly what happens during every stage of mitosis.

The part of this course that I enjoyed the most was the grant proposal summative. Although I think I am the only one who really liked the project, I found it a lot of fun gathering information on a topic you know close to nothing about and then creating a product that solves some kind of problem. I also liked making a presentation to the class about our findings and pitching to a board about why they should give us money for to continue on with our efforts.

The part of this course that I didn’t like at all was these science journals. I know this is my very last one, but I hate these things with a fiery passion. I don’t like having to sit down every week and write a page on something related to science, and then having to publish it onto a blog at the end of the month. I found this task tedious and annoying. However, I do see the reason why it is a part of the curriculum and why teachers enforce it so much. It basically forces us to research things, and make scientific inquires about them.

In the grade 10 science curriculum, I would like to learn more about physics. In grade 9, we did ecology which is kind of similar to the climate change unit in grade 10. I would much rather spend the time on a unit which would actually teach us something new and not shove global warming in our faces. I think that the grade 10 curriculum should replace climate change with a physics unit such as an introduction to kinematics. I think a couple of lessons on displacement, velocity and acceleration should suffice. This will also give students a very rough idea of what the grade 11 physics course is so that students can decide whether they should take it or not.

I strongly believe that other students agree with me on giving the boot to climate change and the science journals. Since we have so much time to do the science journals, most students forget to do one every so often and fall behind quickly. Eventually students are scrambling to get three or four done in one night. Also, I have heard many students complain about climate change. Since there is usually no time left for it, I would much rather just have an exam review week then a climate change unit.

In conclusion, the grade 10 science course was a pretty fun one. I enjoyed it more than the grade 9 science course and it was one of my favourite courses I have taken in all of high school. I learned a lot more than I expected to in this course and I am excited to see what’s in store for the senior level science courses. 

Checkerboard Approach - Was it too Dangerous?

Have you ever flown into Hong Kong before 1998? If so, you probably never forgot your arrival. Before the current airport in Hong Kong took over in 1998, Hong Kong’s Kai Tak airport was the main airport for all arriving and departing aircraft. The airport had a runway of over 10 000 feet so it was perfectly capable to handling large long haul aircraft, although, large aircraft had a rather hard time getting down to the runway.

If you’ve been on an airplane before you probably know how the whole jig works. There is a system called an instrument landing system (ILS) which includes a VOR beacon and a glideslope. When the pilot turns his aircraft to face the runway, he captures the ILS signals and the aircraft flies itself down to the runway, until the pilot decides to take over manual control by disengaging the autopilot. This is a standard procedure at major airports all around the world, although, at some specialty airports, this procedure does not exist. The absence of an ILS system usually means that one cannot be physically implemented into the airport because of surrounding terrain. That was the case at Hong Kong’s Kai Tak airport.

Hong Kong’s downtown core was basically built around Kai Tak. Eventually, the entire airport was surrounded by high rise office buildings and residential areas. This doesn’t pose as much of a problem as the mountain does. Kai Tak had two runways, runway 13 and runway 31. You may be confused if you look at a diagram of the airport because there only seems to be one runway. Runways 13 and 31 are the same runway, but runway 13 is on one end and runway 31 is on the other. Runway 13’s straight in approach is obstructed by mountains which makes landing on this runway very difficult. One may say “why not land on the other runway?”, but this is usually impossible because departing aircraft cannot take off towards the mountains so aircraft must both land and take off on runway 13.

So, in the 1970’s one man came up with a radical idea. He suggested that an ILS system could be implemented for aid the pilots on approach into the airport, but not line them up with the runway. The system worked as follows. The pilot would capture an ILS signal which would points directly at the mountain. Then, the pilot would disconnect the autopilot when he sees a brightly lit checkerboard and make a 47 degree right turn to line up with the runway. Oh, I forgot to mention that the winds on the airfield were usually a right crosswind making it even more difficult for the pilot to line his plane up with the runway.

So, now that we all know about the “checkerboard approach”, it’s time to ask the question, was it too dangerous? The topic has been debated for a while but the main answer is no. The approach was in no way dangerous. It was a complicated approach in which pilots had to spend hours training in the simulator, but it was not dangerous.

In fact there was only one accident concerning the approach, which was a plane overshooting the runway and ending up in the ocean. If there wasn’t more than one accident, it says to me that the approach could not have been dangerous. If this was back in the 50’s, I may have said it was dangerous for one reason. Flight Simulation has reached new heights in the past 50 years and now every pilot must train in sophisticated simulators before they even get to touch the real aircraft. Since the simulator technology existed when the approach was made, pilots got the hands on experience of the flying the approach realistically before they even tried their hand at the real thing.

In addition, many people think that the airport was closed mainly because the approach was too dangerous but this is not the case. Kai Tak airport was old and very small. There was simply too much traffic in such a small airport so they had to build a larger airport on a manmade island. No approach is dangerous, as long as the pilots have the proper training to make the approach safely. One cannot fly into Kai Tak anymore since its closure in 1998, but the checkerboard approach will always be remembered as the beast for pilots to tame. 

Optics Unit - In Class Experience

Our third unit in this course was Light and Optics. In this unit, I got to learn about how light and lasers work, the reflection and refraction of light and how light acts in different types of mirrors and lenses. Additionally, I got to perform experiments on finding where images are located using converging and diverging lenses.

In this unit, I found studying how light behaves when it interacts with mirrors and lenses the most interesting. I think I found this interesting because I had no idea how mirrors and lenses worked before we started this unit, and learning about how we really see all of these images was quite interesting. I also never knew that it was possible for a mirror or lens to diverge light rays resulting in a virtual image. I always thought that we saw things in mirrors because they had a shiny surface and our image just appeared in them. I also had no idea how convex and concave mirrors altered our appearance, and had wondered about that before this unit. I also like being able to draw myself a simple diagram to find out where images are. Since I can figure out where images really are located in lenses and mirrors, I like to draw myself diagrams and see where images will be located and then compare my diagram to what I see through the lens or mirror.

The part about this unit that I found the least interesting was learning about the reflection of light in plane mirrors. I know I said that I really liked knowing how the light works, but the topic was just a tad bit boring to learn about. The only thing I really learned in that lesson was that light bounces back at the same angle it strikes an object if the object is flat. I really like having that knowledge and it fills some gaps that I had on the understanding of mirrors, but that lesson was just boring. There isn’t anything we can do about it though, reflection in plane mirrors will always continue to follow “angle of incidence = angle of reflection”.

Something I would love to learn more is how we actually see objects. This topic was very briefly covered in the first PowerPoint, but never expanded upon. The only thing we learned about how we actually see objects is that light is absorbed by certain objects and light is reflected off of certain objects, and you see the reflected light. The only thing this helped me explain was the reason why wearing a black shirt on a hot day is a bad idea. I would have liked to learn more about how different colours of light are absorbed and reflected on objects. I would have also liked to learn about why different objects look like they are different colours. Some items are red, and others are blue, but why? We know that the red objects reflect red light and the blue objects reflect blue light, but why do they reflect those colours of light? Why don’t red objects reflect both red and orange light? It probably has something to do with the material but I would have really liked to learn more about this.

I actually do not think that other students are on the same page as me when it comes to this unit. I have heard many students complaining that optics is the worst unit in the Grade 10 Science curriculum. Although I heavily disagree, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. In my honest opinion, I believe that the grade 10 optics curriculum should be left as is, although other students would disagree. I think most students did not like the fact that the optics unit went over so much information so fast. I don’t think this is a problem with the curriculum itself but a problem in the way that it was taught to us. Perhaps other students didn’t like the fact that we learned refraction, how to calculate the index of refraction and Snell’s law on the same day? Maybe others didn’t like that we learned both the thin lens and magnification equations on the same day? However, I do have one recommendation. Snell’s law was not really taught to us in class, and it was put aside as a do it yourself assignment. I really think that this topic should be addressed in class, especially for those students who struggle with math.

Overall, I really liked the Optics Unit, and I am excited to see what Physics has in store next year. This unit provided the perfect balance between memorization and thinking, as well as taught me so many things about how light behaves when it strikes objects that I never knew before. 

Are Airplanes Becoming Too Sophisticated?

Ever since the Wright Brothers first flew their powered aircraft in 1903, aircraft manufactures have been competing to make the better aircraft. What is the better aircraft? Is it the aircraft with the largest capacity, or is it the most fuel efficient aircraft? Most people say it is a combination of various factors. People have their own opinions but the real “best” aircraft is the aircraft that is the most successful with each particular niche. 

Boeing 777 Cockpit

In the past 100 years, great heights in technology have been reached. As a result of this, the technology in the cockpits of aircraft has also gotten significantly better. For instance, let’s take the Boeing 707 and pit it against the Boeing 777. The Boeing 707 was the most popular long haul aircraft back in the 1950’s and had a strong presence until the early 1980’s. Back then, the aircraft was considered quite technologically advanced. The Boeing 777 is basically today’s counterpart of the Boeing 707. The only difference is its design, the fact it can fly much further and hold many more people, and also, that it has much newer technology. The old Boeing 707 required pilots to manually tune VOR stations and radials for the aircraft to be able to navigate. The pilots also had to perform a countless amount of calculations regarding decent points, climb rates and many other factors affecting performance. On the Boeing 777, all of these calculations are done with a tool called the Flight Management System (FMS) and the navigation is done pretty much automatically, with no pilot input.

Boeing 707 Cockpit

This sounds great doesn’t it? New technology means that there is less work for the pilots in command of the aircraft, which gives them more time to focus on the task of actually flying the plane. However, the question of “are these planes getting too safe” has been brought up many times. For example, look at the aircraft manufacturer Airbus Industries. Since 1988, Airbus has been implementing a system in their aircraft called “Fly by Wire”. 

Traditionally, aircraft control surfaces are moved by large cables which are attached to a yoke which is controlled by the pilots. This fly by wire technology eliminates these heavy cables, by sending all inputs from the pilots to a computer which moves the control surfaces. This system works quite well, as it eliminates the need for large and heavy cables. More and more aircraft form other manufactures are implementing this system, but Airbus has other systems which override pilot input. Yes, you read that right; the plane can actually override pilot input. For instance, if the plane is about to enter a stall and the pilot tries to pull the aircraft of the nose up, the flight computer push the nose down to increase airspeed and prevent the aircraft from stalling. The system works quite well, although many argue that humans should always have the final say on what happens, not a computer with artificial intelligence. In 1988, an Airbus A320 was performing a demonstration flight. The plane came in too slow and too low. As a result the aircraft was close to stalling so the aircraft pushed the nose down to prevent the stall. The only problem, there was a forest right in front of the plane and the aircraft ended up crashing into it.

So, time to answer the question. Are aircraft really getting to technologically advanced? Many people have argued this topic for years now and there is no conclusive answer, everything depends on personal opinion. In my opinion, I do not thing that aircraft are becoming too technologically advanced. I believe that if the proper precautions are taken, airplanes that make our current technology look like it comes from the Stone Age can be perfectly safe. We just need to make sure that manufacturers spend just as much time on assuring the airworthiness of the aircraft as well as the technology that goes into it. 

Extracting and Replicating Human Memories

For the Grant Proposal summative project this year, my group studied ways to extract human memories and then save them onto a form of disk drive for access in the future. We thought that a system like this could aid people who had diseases such as Alzheimer’s.  Even though the research on the topic we did shows that this process is possible, I would like to discuss it further here, and find out if the process is actually possible or not.

Firstly, I must note that the extraction and replication of human memories is a very difficult task. The brain is a very complicated aspect of the human body and not just anyone can study its behaviours. In my grant proposal project, we looked at simple research papers and newspaper articles to figure out all the information we needed. In reality, my grant proposal group members and I would have not been able to perform the task that we set out to do, simply on the fact that dealing with the human brain, or the brain of any other animal is a very difficult task, and must only be done by professionals. Currently, highly respected individuals at the University of California Berkley (UC Berkley) are studying the process of extracting and replicating memories.

It is also important to add that this technology will not be available for a very long time. Tests done at UC Berkley show re-created images of what test subjects saw in movie trailers, but the images were rather blurry, and looked very different from the original images. As technology advances, humans will develop systems that are capable of finding clearer images.

Okay, here comes the question. Is it actually possible to recreate images from the human mind and replicate them? Well, researches at UC Berkley have showed us that it is possible.

As you can see the images shown to the test subjects were re-created although, they were rather blurry and some were inconsistent with the images the subjects were shown. However, this shows that the technology is possible. Now, can we take things to the next step and actually save these images on a form of disk drive (Hard Disk Drive, CD Rom etc.) In order to accomplish this, the technology to develop clear images from the human brain must first be developed, after that, I don’t see why it would be too difficult to save the images on to something like a hard drive. Images that are extracted from the human brain would probably be natively saved in a file type such as .jpg, .png or whatever is in use at the time the technology is developed. From there the images could be put directly onto a hard drive for viewing at any time making it easy to access past memories.

You might be thinking, “oh, this is great, I can view memories from my past now”. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This type of technology will probably only be available to highly respected medical institutions until further development is made. Nevertheless, this technology may be able to make its way into the hands of the average human being like you and me one day. In my grant proposal presentation, my group and I said that in the future we would like to make the process of extracting and replicating memories mobile. At the rate technology is advancing today, I think that this is completely possible. If we do get to the point where we can easily extract and replicate the memories of human beings, there should be no problem uploading them to a high security database where we can access those images from our brain at our own will.