Mechanical engineer Jason Moore knows this all too well. To conduct an experiment on the mechanics of bicycle-riding, he even used a sewing machine.

Moore’s doctoral dissertation on the complex mechanisms by which a rider balances atop a bike required him to build a research bicycle at the University of California, Davis. We filmed Moore for our story about the science of riding a bicycle. In this slideshow you can explore some of the bike’s components and the work that went into creating them:

Illuminated Initial N, Spanish, 1290-1310, on view at the Getty

I had a fantastic middle school history teacher named Mr. Saunders. One day, after we had been learning about illuminated manuscripts, Mr. Saunders gave us a class period of complete silence–except for a tape of Gregorian chants–to create our own.

We didn't have any gold leaf, so our manuscripts were not technically "illuminated," merely illustrated. But it was one of my favorite classes, and I've been fond of the art form ever since. So when I was in LA this weekend and noticed that the Getty was showing a new illuminated manuscript exhibit, I had to check it out.

Initial I of the Bible illuminated by Thomas Ingmire

Okay, I realize that the Getty is in Southern California, and here I am on a Northern California blog, but I have an excuse: the only work in the exhibit that wasn't centuries old belonged to San Francisco master calligrapher Thomas Ingmire! Did you know we had a master calligrapher? Neither did I!

Ingmire had created a series of pages to demonstrate all the steps of the illumination process. The artist first paints glue over the areas to be illuminated, then sticks gold leaf to the glue and brushes any extra leaf away. At this point, though, the gold is dull matte and the page can hardly be called illuminated. How to make it glossy?

Initial I, Italian, 1250-1262, on view at the Getty

Gloss, or shine, or illumination–whatever you want to call it–comes from specular reflection, the same thing that makes a mirror work. When a surface is very smooth at the microscopic level, all the light rays hitting it are reflected at the same angle. A mirror has almost perfect specular reflection, because it's almost perfectly smooth. But if the surface has microscopic bumps and ridges, they reflect light rays in all different directions, leading to diffuse reflection–a matte surface.

So the gold leaf has to be smoothed by rubbing it with something hard, traditionally bone. You may already be familiar with this technique, called burnishing, if you were unlucky enough to have a boring history teacher and spent the class period smoothing gum wrappers with your thumbnail.

I was not a gum-chewing child–but I was an amateur calligrapher, in addition to being infatuated with illuminated manuscripts. After looking at Ingmire's series at the Getty, I thought, "Maybe I'll try this when I get home!" Then I read up on working with gold leaf–and decided to write about it instead.

Hypothetical Space Shuttle at Epsilon Eridani. Credit for base image: NASA

Once again I have drifted off thinking about the size and scale of space–the things in it and the distances between them–and once again have brought pen and paper, math, and a spreadsheet to bear on the question: are the stars in our destiny, or is the notion of physically reaching them (in person, at least) beyond the available realities?

With all of the science fiction stories devised to get their characters to other stars not only within their lifetimes, but sometimes within a few paltry days, it’s easy to think of interstellar travel as something we might eventually get around to, given the technology, time, and money. We just need to figure out how warp drive or hyperspace work, and how to exploit them, and we’re off!

But putting teleportation and wormhole expressways and their ilk on the shelf labeled, “Cool, but probably just fancy” for a moment, what are the Newtonian-Einsteinian requirements to get us to, say, the nearest known extrasolar planet, which orbits the star Epsilon Eridani, 10.4 light years away from us? It’s a gas giant planet larger than Jupiter and orbits well beyond its star’s habitable zone, but it’s a planet after all, and we star-seekers just love planets.

Now the math that will get us there. I had to assume a mass for our would-be starship, conservatively chosen as 2000 metric tons, or about the weight of the Space Shuttle. In reality that’s far too small a ship for any human interstellar journey, unless the crew are all frozen. And keep in mind, my calculation does not take into account the weight of any fuel we need to carry with us. I’m also choosing a top cruising (coasting) speed of one-tenth the speed of light, or 30,000 kilometers per second. A tenth light speed is pretty darned fast, but not so fast that we need to worry much about relativistic mass—that is, the increase in the spaceship’s effective mass when traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light.

If our engines can produce thrust sufficient to accelerate our 2000 ton spaceship at a rate of “1 gee”, or one Earth-gravity equivalent (~10 meters per second, per second), then to achieve a velocity of one-tenth light speed we’ll need to run those engines for about 35 days, non-stop. We should assume our engines are powered by nuclear fusion or even antimatter reaction (possible future technologies that today present technical challenges, but which aren’t on that shelf of sci-fi fancy).

The energy required for this 1-gee, 35-day engine burn of our 2000 ton spaceship is about 900,000,000,000,000 (yes, 900 trillion) MegaJoules, or 250 trillion kilowatt-hours. That’s the same amount of energy required to launch 20 million normal Space Shuttle flights to low Earth orbit, or almost twice the world’s annual energy consumption. And that’s just to get this little ship accelerated to cruising speed. We’d need another like amount of energy to slow it down to its destination in the Epsilon Eridani system.

As for how long the trip would take, forgetting the 35 days spent getting up to speed and the 35 days spent slowing down again, traveling 10.4 light years at one-tenth the speed of light would take 104 years, one way. (Although, moving at a tenth light speed, the trip would only feel like 103.5 years due to relativistic effects.)

What about the weight of fuel required to do the job? Forget normal rocket fuel; we’d need the energy contained in about 20 billion tons of it just to get to cruising speed—and that doesn’t take into account the mass of the fuel itself, which would also need to be accelerated. Two-thousand ton spacecraft + 20 billion tons of fuel = not practical.

If our engine is powered by hydrogen fusion, we may only need about 3000 tons of fuel (and I’m assuming our fuel is also our propellant—the mass we need to fling out of the engine to accelerate the ship by reaction force; probably not a conservative assumption, in reality).

And if we could use antimatter as our fuel, as does the Starship Enterprise, releasing energy by mixing equal parts antimatter with normal matter, we could carry in our fuel tanks as little as 5 tons of the stuff (plus, I think, 5 tons of normal matter to react with) to achieve cruising speed.

And of course double the fuel amounts if you plan to come to a stop at your destination, 104 years from now.

In summary: tiny cramped ship, 20 tons of antimatter/matter fuel to pack the necessary 500 trillion kilowatt-hours of energy, and 104 years to delivery you to the fabulous Epsilon Eridani system with its one known super-Jupiter sized planet. Anyone interested? Or should we leave space travel to the robot crowd….

Do you have a unique voice that sets you apart from the crowd? Contribute your stories to QUEST!

KQED QUEST is looking to add new voices to our blog, which already offers commentary from our producers, reporters, and local writers from our partner institutions at Chabot Space & Science Center and The Tech Museum.

We're looking to include folks who are actively involved in the science, environment and nature blogging community – e.g. have a blog, guest post on others' site, and comment / participate in relevant discussions. And we're looking locally. Our blog has a strong SF Bay Area focus, though we do occasionally cover and/or perform analysis on how this stuff elsewhere that affects the Bay Area.

What we cover

QUEST’s geographic coverage is from Mendocino to Monterey and from Sacramento to Santa Clara, and generally covers 9 content areas: astronomy, biology, chemistry, engineering, environment, geology, health, physics and weather.

Requirements

• Original posts, 3-500 words with at least 1 image. Schedule determined on availability, but weekly or bi-monthly is preferred.
• Posts should relate back to at least one of our 9 themes for the program: Astronomy, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Weather, Geology, Biology, Environment, Health.
• Topic should be something about which you have some expertise and/or passion.
• A unique voice and ability to follow our QUEST writing guidelines (see below).
• Experience with WordPress or similar blogging platform.
• Willingness to occasionally be assigned a post topic by the editor as current events dictate.
• Respect for copyright and fair use.

Would I get paid?

Yes – we offer a small stipend on a per post basis.

Alrighty, then. How do I apply?

Email us a note and bio to questeditor@kqed.org explaining what you'd like to write for us. Please also include some links to relevant blogs you admire, and/or participate in, and why. Send us a writing sample or two (links are fine), and we'll review it in the next couple weeks. Last day to submit is February 1st. Our hope is to bring aboard a few new bloggers by mid-February.

Some beats we're interested in

Although we want to hear from a wide range of writers, here are a few coverage areas we're keen on in particular:

• Bay ecology background and issues
• Science education
• Silicon Valley / engineering innovations
• Hacks, DIY, and hands-on science activities
• Hiking and outdoors (with a science focus)
• Food science
• Convergence of art & science
• Nature & science photography

Writing Guidelines

(As laid out by our managing editor, Paul Rogers)

Why does my grandmother care? A key requirement of QUEST bloggers will be to explain scientific and environmental issues in a way that the general public can understand. Our audience is mostly made up of people who aren’t scientists or environmental activists. Posts should explain why the topics they are writing about are relevant to Bay Area residents.

Get to the point. Studies have shown that readers spend only a minute or two on most web sites before moving on. The average reader reads about 200 words a minute. Write tight, and lively. Keep it interesting and informative.

Avoid jargon. The purpose of good writing is to communicate clearly. Don’t use complex, esoteric scientific terms. Instead of saying "non-point source pollution," say "polluted runoff." Instead of "extravehicular activity," say “space walk.”

Be personal. Relate personal experiences. Speak in the first person. Tell them where you saw the blue herons or which movie best depicts what a real moon base might look like. Find your own voice and write in a compelling, approachable way.

Be passionate. Write about subjects and topics that you care about. Please don’t feel you have to stick to a script or formula. Express yourself.

Drive traffic to the blog. Place a link in your correspondence and comments to the blog. Mention it on other web forums.

Write for the bigger picture. Don’t view the blog as a place just to promote your institution or pet cause. Keep in mind your audience is made up of a wide diversity of people, with wide interests.

Speak your mind, but check your facts. Or your audience will do it for you with painful results.

Know your fellow bloggers. You'll be part of a vibrant community with fresh ideas and discussions nearly every day. Don't be afraid to comment on their posts, or link to their entries. Have fun with it! Dreary bloggers or insufferable policy wonks need not apply.

From hackerspaces to banana slugs, flying telescopes to cheese — it's been a quite a diverse year of storytelling here at QUEST. Here's a round-up of the top 10 video and audio stories and blog posts (based on page views) that you've enjoyed from the past year. Please let us know what other stories you've enjoyed in the comments section below, and if there's anything you'd like to see in the coming season!



VIDEO:

Nanotechnology Takes Off

Stem Cell Gold Rush
Science on the SPOT: Banana Slugs Unpeeled
Berkeley Lab Physicist Shares Nobel
Science on the SPOT: Open Source Creativity – Hackerspaces
Super Laser at the National Ignition Facility
The World's Most Powerful Microscope
The Science & Art of Cheese
Mt. Umunhum: Return to the Summit
The Fierce Humboldt Squid

AUDIO:

Up All Night on NASA's Flying Telescope</a>

The Lost Lagoon
Energy-Saving Windows Get Smarter
The Amazing Transformation of San Francisco's "Sludge Puddle"
Supercomputers Hit an Energy Wall
From Tunnel to Tap: Quake-Proofing Our Water Supply
"A Big, Captivating Idea": The Bay Area Ridge Trail
Architecture for the Birds
Gulls Threaten South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Work
In a Sea of Energy Data, Utilities Try to Inspire Conservation

BLOG:

Explosive hypothesis about humans' lack of genetic diversity
Diet Sodas May Not Be As Harmless As You Think
Health Officials to Consider Tightening Vaccine Exemptions
Scientists Understand Heart Disease Better, Still Give Bad Advice
The Megalodon's Descendants
Famous African American Scientists & Innovators: Part II
Swine Flu – A Virus or a Bacteria?
Cyber Wolves in (Fire)Sheep Clothing
Why Do Mosquitoes Buzz in People's Ears?
15 Months Later, Rediscovered San Francisco Plant Thrives

Photo by Dimaano Photography

On Monday night, I caught myself, while waiting at a crosswalk, squinting at the oncoming traffic and studying the difference intensities of light coming off of car headlights. I was trying to figure out which headlights were LEDs and which ones were incandescents. I missed my signal to cross and had to wait for the next light change because of my musings.

My musings were inspired by a 90-minute walk through a hilly region of the city led by Robin Marks. Robin, a biochemist, science journalist and former science tinkerer at the Exploratorium, started Discovery Street Tours this past July. The website describes the tours as “more than just a walking tour. It’s an urban investigation of the science under your feet, in your food, and in your life. You’ll demo the science for yourself with hands-on activities, eat some tasty treats, and meet other folks like yourself—curious, active, and a little beyond the ordinary.”

Science got festive on the night of Sunday, December 11th as 18 of us, bundled against the cold and misting fog headed up 20th Street for the The Science of (Holiday) Light preview tour. Through the up-and-down mile and half route, we took frequent stops to admire holiday handiwork, discuss the history of holiday lights, view the different types and understand how our brains were taking in light signals.

My favorite part of the tour was when we stopped at a corner house strung with both LED and incandescent holiday lights. We were encouraged to look closely and notice the difference in both the quality and brightness of light. While incandescent bulbs use a filament to produce light and heat, LEDs (light emitting diodes) are lower energy semi-conducters. LEDs shoot out light in a straight line. After learning this, I was able to identify the LED string of lights not only by the light but the crystal cut bulbs around the light that enabled the straight line of light to be refracted — making the iconic twinkling glow associated with holiday lights.

As a nerd herder and being generally inquisitive about science, this was a very satisfying tour. I was able to ramble through the city taking in wonderful panoramic scenes in one instance and then turn around and look closer at the mundane with awe at how I was seeing it with new insight and understanding. My fellow tour-goers raised other questions about light and color, as our curiosity was further sparked by what we were seeing and learning. One conversation that got started involved pollinators; which insects and birds are attracted to the red over white flowers, and the effects the visible spectrum they see have on how they pollinate species of flowers.

As this was a preview, the inquisitive can still put science in their step. Robin will be leading The Science of (Holiday) Light tour several more times in December, including Christmas Eve and the evening of Christmas Day. Tours start at 6:30pm and all the dates, more details and booking information can be found online.

The window testing facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (Photo: LBNL)

Windows may not be as sexy as solar panels or electric cars, but they play a major role in energy efficiency. Buildings are responsible for 40% of the country’s energy use, which is why researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are trying to improve windows by making them smarter.

As Berkeley Lab engineer Howdy Goudey demonstrates in his lab, studying windows involves some pretty complex physics.

“So we use an infrared camera to study heat transfer in windows,” he says, pointing to a normal-looking video camera that senses heat instead of visible light. Goudey uses the camera to study how windows lose energy.

For the most part, windows simply aren’t good insulators. They leak heat in the winter when we want a warm house and they let heat in during the summer. Many homes still have single-pane windows, which were the name of the game in the 1940s and 50s when California was booming.

That changed when energy prices sky-rocketed in the 1970s. Double-pane windows became common. And then came double-pane windows with invisible coatings, which are twice as efficient. Today, they make up more than half of windows sold.

Measuring Low-e Windows

Goudey demonstrates how they work by turning on two heat lamps. “You’ve seen them in a diner keeping food warm," he says, putting them behind two identical-looking double-pane windows.

We stand in front of one window, which feels like standing in the sun. “But if you hold your hand to other one, compared to this one, it’s very dramatic,” Goudey says.

An infrared image of two windows during winter conditions, as seen from the inside of a room. The window on the right has a low-e coating while the window on the left doesn't. Warmer temperatures mean a better insulating window. (Image: LBNL)

The second window is cooler because it has a low-emissivity coating, or low-e, as its known. It’s an invisible layer of metal on the glass that acts as an insulator. And it does one more thing.

When sunlight shines directly through a window, it provides both light and heat. Most of us want light coming in, but heat is the last thing we want on a hot summer day. So, the coating on the window blocks the heat from the sun (in the form of infrared light), while letting in the visible light. This is known as solar gain. (Check out this guide for more on what to look for when buying windows.)

“If you have a few windows in a room with direct sun on them, its equivalent to running a little space heater. So it’s significant energy,” says Goudey.

However, on a cold winter day, the extra heat from sun would be helpful. “You’d actually like that solar energy to come in and help heat the space,” he says.

That’s why researchers are working to develop a “smart” or dynamic window that can change based on the weather or temperature.

Using Nanotechnology to Make Windows Smarter

At Berkeley Lab’s Molecular Foundry, Delia Milliron grows tiny nanocrystals that will eventually become a window coating.

“Nanocrystals are very small,” says Milliron. “Way smaller than you can see with your eyes. And so that’s why when we spread them out in a coating on the window, you don’t see anything.”

Milliron’s coating is dynamic. In one setting, it lets in both the light and heat from the sun. But, apply an electric charge of a couple volts and the window blocks the heat from the sun, while still letting light in.

Ideally, these windows would be controlled by your heating and cooling system, which could adjust them based on the weather. Milliron and her team are currently working on the coating itself. Their next step is to build a full-scale prototype. Other companies also have similar kinds of dynamic windows in the works.

Windows as Energy Suppliers

This changes the conversation about windows, says Stephen Selkowitz, head of building technologies at Berkeley Lab. Before, windows were energy losers. Now, windows could actually make buildings more efficient. And that means big cost savings.

“If we add up all the energy and economic impact of windows in the US, it costs building owners about $40 billion a year. And I’d rather have the $40 billion in my pocket than sort of sending it out the window,” says Selkowitz.

Smart windows could start appearing in larger projects like office buildings next year and should be more widely available to homeowners in three to five years. But they could be twice as expensive as today's windows. Selkowitz expects the cost coming down as manufacturing ramps up.

“The biggest expense in replacing windows is often the labor of replacing the window. And if you already decided to put a new window in, the marginal cost of going to a much better window is almost always worth it,” he says.

So, while it may be only a few tech-geeks that spring for smart windows at first, Selkowitz says that leads the way for the rest of us – and for new buildings codes, where technology can have a much broader impact.

As a hunting bat closes in on a flying insect, its echolocation calls get closer and closer together, and shorter and shorter in duration. The calls, more than 160 per second, give the bat rapid-fire information on the location of its ever-moving prey.

To the human ear, the calls register as one continuous sound. Researchers call it the “terminal buzz,” and until recently, scientists did not fully understand how bats produced it.

Bats use muscles in the larynx to produce sound, just like humans, but scientists had never found a mammal muscle that could turn on and off that quickly.

"You can tap your finger on a table, and you can try to tap your finger as fast as you possibly can," said Andy Mead, a biology graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. Eventually, your muscles seize up and you can’t tap any faster, Mead said. “You can probably tap five, six, seven times a second if you really try.”

As part of a research team led by Coen Elemans from the University of Southern Denmark , Mead found muscles in a bat larynx that could turn on and off in less than one one-hundredth of a second, firing up to 180 times a second.

"It was instantaneously really shocking and exciting to see yes, this is a very, very fast muscle," Mead said.

The discovery marked the first evidence of a “superfast” muscle in a mammal. Superfast muscles are responsible for the rattle of a rattlesnake and the mating call of the bottom-dwelling toadfish and some songbirds, but the discovery of the muscles in mammals leads researchers to believe they may be more common than they thought. They are also key to the evolutionary success of bats, which are the only flying mammals to use echolocation to hunt.

See the original story from our partners at WHYY.

Additional Links

• Scientific community unites to save bats: Bats are dying at rapid rates of the mysterious white nose syndrome. Learn about efforts in Pennsylvania to study the disease.

Dr. Michael Catelaz at work on the GAMMA II imaging machine, at the Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute (PARI) in North Carolina.

Dr. Michael Castelaz, the Science Director at the Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute, knows GAMMA II is a sleeping giant.  He just needs a little help waking up the beast.

GAMMA II and its sister, GAMMA I, are legendary imaging machines that were used to create the 19-million strong Guide Star Catalogue for the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).   Think of the Guide Star Catalogue as a souped-up GPS, enabling the Hubble to set its scope on stars thousands of miles away.

Four years ago, the Space Telescope Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University announced it was retiring the image-makers after nearly 20 years of service.

The news swept across the astronomy community and Castelaz and his colleagues at PARI jumped at the opportunity to bring the GAMMA machines to their Western North Carolina campus and reconfigure them for a new cataloging gig.

“It’s old, but it’s still state of the art.  It’s incredible what was done in terms of designing these instruments and getting them going,” Michael Castelaz.

But why bring this beast to PARI? PARI houses a collection of old photographic plates known as the Astronomical Photographic Data Archive, or APDA. Those analog plates contain invaluable data of the night sky, but are not easy to share and use. Catelaz and ADPA director Thurburn Barker believe the re-commissioned GAMMA II can help convert those plates– some of which date back to the 1890s – into new digital maps for future astronomers.  The maps will unlock data on thousands of unclassified stars known to exist in the APDA collection that can then be cataloged by their size, temperature and distance.

When PARI finally obtained the machines they were in pieces: three-tons of granite and lasers awaiting their next mission.  The sheer mass of the machines was intended to absorb vibrations from the floor as well the Earth.  In order to effectively serve the Hubble, GAMMA precisely mapped stars down to the exact micron.  That’s a thousandth of a millimeter to you and me. Castelaz and his cohort eventually reassembled GAMMA II and got all the electronics up and running.  However, do to the jerry-rigging and hand-written code used to reconfigure the original machine, they have not been able to recreate the imaging capacity … yet.

As soon as PARI can get GAMMA humming, the APDA collection will no longer be a black hole.  The meticulous work by generations of astronomers will be ushered into the 21^st century, bringing analog data back to the future.

On November 2, The World Science Festival, Columbia University and NOVA hosted a screening of What is Space? to coincide with the NOVA: Fabric of the Cosmos series premiere. The screening took place at Columbia's Miller theatre and was immediately followed by a live-streamed webcast, hosted by acclaimed physicist Dr. Brian Greene. The webcast allowed the in-theatre and digital audiences to further explore the program’s rich material in direct conversation with Dr. Greene — the series' host and best-selling author — as well as other featured program participants, including Saul Perlmutter, our local Lawrence Berkeley Lab astrophysicist and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.