Now you see it, now you don’t – episode 9 of Yet Another Science Show is finally here! Special guest, Harvard PhD Student Phil Munoz, sits down at Jesse’s table with Orad, Jes and Nina to talk meta-atoms, metamaterials and invisibility cloaks. Don’t miss out! References Here are some references we used while researching this show: The Radiolab Episode about the colours that animals see. Also, the word from our sponsor features music by TIBE: https://soundcloud.com/tibemtl

Smell is a powerful thing.  In fact, some say it’s the most powerful of our senses. But it’s not a well-understood sense by any means.  Every now and again, a new study appears with a new set of categories or a new angle, but for now, the definitive answer on how smell really works remains elusive. A recent study set the number of odour categories at 10, but the YASSers think that something about it just smells off. Take a listen to find out why. After a brief hiatus, the guys are back! Orad and Jesse introduce their new co-host Nina Pariser and discuss smell. Plus, our first legit voicemail!   References Here are some scientific references we used while researching this show: Categorical Dimensions of Human Odor Descriptor Space Revealed by Non-Negative Matrix Factorization from PLOS one, 18 September 2013. An article in the BBC about smell. The Science of Scent, a TED Talk by biophysicist Luca Turin. How do dogs “see” with their noses? – Youtube video. The Smell Report from the Social Issues Research Centre. Photo Source: Armin Kübelbeck, CC-BY-SA, Wikimedia Commons

The Voyager golden record. Hi Yassers! Miss Yet Another Science Show? Well, here’s a quick teaser of our imminent return. It’s a convo Jes and Orad had about Voyager when it was leaving the solar system. Stay tuned for more full-length episodes and science minutes, coming soon!

Orad in his cleanroom gear. Ever wondered what your co-hosts do when they’re not being fab broadcast personalities? Or what the show would sound like if at least one of us really knew what we were talking about? Well listen up, because it’s about to happen: In this episode, Orad describes just what it is he does as a scientist, while Jesse tries to not get confused. Plus, the strangest voicemail we’ve gotten so far… Okay, the only voicemail we’ve gotten so far…

Good morning Yassers! We’re trying something new at Yet Another Science Show called our Science Minute. No time to explain it (that’s the point!) so just give her a listen and let us know what you think. And don’t you fear – a full episode of Yet Another Science Show will be coming up in just two short weeks!

Professor Steve Yalisove of the University of Michigan Do you know what the difference is between a material’s strength and its toughness? If you’re like most of us, you don’t. But that difference plays a big part in why springs don’t snap under pressure and why only certain materials can be used for the frames in buildings and bridges. Listen in and get the scoop on material toughness and strength as we host our first interviewee, Professor Steve Yalisove of the University of Michigan’s Material Science and Engineering department, where he teaches an introductory material science course. Mailbag Peter from Calgary writes: I just listened to the episode on speciation – thanks for the shout out – and I have a beef with one of the items you discussed.  There was mention in there of humans evolving larger thumbs because of computers or losing their pinkies, etc.  This was taken as proof that “we’re still evolving”. Now, maybe I’m off-base here, but although mutations happen all the time they only become dominant if there’s some evolutionary advantage.  If someone with a longer thumb was more successful (i.e. more likely to reproduce) then over time the thumb would grow.  The same goes for any feature.  Humanity will not lose its pinky unless: People with stubby pinkies are sexy and make lotsa babies People with long pinkies are gross and rather than mating will spend their time in the basement alone playing WOW People with stubby pinkies are more likely to live to reproductive age, as longer pinkies are fatal The above example may be a bit extreme, but it illustrates that in an age of “there’s a match for everyone” and “science should be able to cure all (or at least give anyone with any condition or deformity a normal life” we have removed the evolutionary pressures from our society. Come to think of it, the evolution of man (past, present and future) could prove to be a very interesting show on its own. Keep up the good work! Peter PS: Orad, unless you were hosting this podcast from the bottom of a rain barrel, it’s definitely time for a new mic. This episode was researched, written, hosted and recorded by Orad Reshef, Jesse Corbeil and Steve Yalisove. Sound editing was done by Jesse Corbeil, Orad Reshef and Aimee Gillespie.

Philips LED lightbulbs on sale in a Canadian hardware store. The lightbulb, right? The good old incandescent lightbulb. Well, it’s maybe not so good anymore. Or comparatively speaking, at least. New lights that boast better energy use and less waste heat are changing the field for the better — or so some would claim. Others prefer the light and warmth offered by the old-fashioned bulb. No matter which side you’re on, the fact is that there’s more than one way to light a room, and we’re talking all about it in this episode. So settle in, give us a listen… and then maybe get in on the conversation! Next episode Next up: Material toughness.References Here are some references we used while researching this show: A page on lighting inventors from the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. A Reuter’s piece on Canada’s (now delayed) roadmap for banning the bulb. A Canada Gazette article on the ban. Wired article about LED lighting, including Orad’s mention about the US ban. A wiki page on Edison. Britannica’s entry on Swan. A Toronto Star article on the ban. A CBC story on the relationship between bulbs and heating bills. The US EPA’s Energy Star page on bulbs. A post at Treehugger about the L-Prize. Mailbag Phil from Cambridge: I’m listening to your episode on the diversification of species, and I heard you wondering aloud why there are no enormous animals. What’s the limit? Well I’m sure there are plenty of nutritional or biological reasons, but I thought I’d share an interesting physical effect that puts an upper limit on the sizes of all kinds of structures, including skeletons: This one has to do with scaling. Basically, a skeleton gets heavy faster than it gets sturdy. The weight of any structure, like a bone, is proportional to its volume. That’s the linear dimension cubed. Big bones mean heavy bones. Meanwhile the amount of weight a structure can support is related to pressures, which go like the force per cross-sectional area. That’s the linear dimension *squared*. So as bones get bigger, the weight they support goes up like the square of the length, but the weight they add grows even faster, like the cube! This means that if you scaled up any animal, you’d eventually reach a point where its bones weigh more than they can support, and its skeleton would collapse. That’s the upper limit. That also explains why sea animals can be larger than land animals– things weigh less in water. The whole thing works in reverse when you talk about very tiny animals. That’s why ants can carry so much weight without collapsing. Engineers have to take this into account when designing bridges; just because a scale model is sturdy doesn’t mean the real thing will be. Keep up the great work! This episode was researched, written, hosted and recorded by Orad Reshef and Jesse Corbeil. Sound editing was done by Jesse Corbeil and Aimee Gillespie.

An African Cichlid. Source: Flickr user orlyscis Deep in Africa’s Rift Valley lakes, a story of extinction and evolution is unfolding at an incredible rate, while elsewhere, islands have their own stories of divergent evolution writ large in their fossils. Speciation is an unending process that has shaped our planet’s history in many ways, and continues to do so today. In this episode, Jesse and Orad tackle the topic of speciation — from its different types to its more extreme cases — along with special guest (and regular behind-the-scenes team member) Aimee Gillespie! Next episode Our next show will be about the history of lighting and how the simple light bulb has changed over the years. Post questions below or contact us here! Note: due to scheduling conflicts with our guest, we will not be able to discuss the planned topic (material toughness) quite yet, but stay tuned! References Here are some scientific references we used while researching this show: Evolution: Dreampond Revisited from Nature, 7 July 2010. An article in the BBC about human hobbits. The National Academy of Sciences paper on the formula for how big animals can get as a function of the land mass of the island they’re on. A paper from the 26 May, 2006 issue of BioEssays on why we don’t see phylum-ation, and the Cambrian explosion. Mailbag Brooke from Guelph comments on our blog: “I loved your comment: ‘It’s almost like the physics knows your watching.’ That’s so telling of the need for us to inspect and better understand the relationship between the scientist and the world. And the rest of us, too.” This episode was researched, written, hosted and recorded by Orad Reshef, Jesse Corbeil and Aimee Gillespie. Sound editing was done by Jesse Corbeil and Orad Reshef.

An example of a “real” magnetic dipole found in ordinary matter, created by a current-carrying wire. Source: Wikipedia Magnetic monopoles are one of those things that really should be real. There’s practically an empty space in physics waiting to be filled by them. But nobody’s found one yet. In some ways, Paul Dirac was as elusive a figure as his monopoles are. Taciturn, impossible to know and sometimes downright bizarre, he nevertheless gave the world of science some of its most enduring theories and equations. Join us for a discussion on Paul Dirac and the magnetic monopole, featuring Orad’s new microphone and Jesse’s wicked head cold. Our next episode will be about genetic diversification, so write in or call about it if you’ve got questions you want us to answer! References Here are the links we mentioned during the show: Coulomb’s chapter on magnets from 1793 (in French). Price’s paper on the cosmic ray he thought was a monopole. Cabrera’s “Valentine’s day monopole” and his update two years later. Mailbag Zach from Cambridge writes: Below is a link to a video of Leonard Susskind talking about the universe as a hologram, in which he uses an information approach to black holes.  He presents a compelling argument, and it is very clear and easy to understand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY I really enjoyed the show, keep up the good work! Greg from Montreal writes: Here’s another angle to the spaghettification in a black hole you guys talked about in your first episode (great podcast by the way). http://m.slashdot.org/story/184329 Julien from Paris also reminds Jesse not to assume that everyone knows what he’s talking about. This episode was researched, written, hosted and recorded by Orad Reshef and Jesse Corbeil. Sound editing was done by Jesse Corbeil, Orad Reshef and Aimee Gillespie. The sound consultant for this episode was Chuck Barnett.

Source: Wikipedia.org There aren’t many things spinning about the cosmos that inspire as much interest, creep-out factor and complete hyperbole as the mighty black hole. Whether we’re talking about a ‘normal’ one with a mass of maybe 20 of our suns, or we’re referring to the supermassives at the centres of the biggest galaxies, our knowledge of black holes has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years. Come join us as we talk about what black holes are, what drives them, and what we’ve come to know about them. This episode was written, hosted and recorded by Orad Reshef and Jesse Corbeil. Research and sound editing was by Jesse Corbeil, Orad Reshef, and Aimee Gillespie.