Tech Thursday: Scorpion Armor and Exploding Bullets

The title of this week's Tech Thursday sounds like science fiction - the topics are unrelated, by the way - but actually they are just two really cool examples of applied science which come to us via The Economist. The first story is that by studying the exoskeleton of scorpions, researchers in China have discovered that a slightly irregular surface partially deflects particles blown at high speed. This helps keep scorpions alive in desert sandstorms, and could potentially reduce the wear on plane engines and helicopter blades. Also, the term 'biomimetics' is really cool.



The second article is about an advancement in military technology which utilizes exploding shrapnel rounds fired from a rifle - given the catchy name XM25 - to explode behind enemy cover. It sounds like a miniature grenade launcher, but actually the shells function more like tiny artillery. First the rifleman uses a laser sight to gauge the distance to an object behind the target's cover, then subtracts a small distance to get to the target's actual range. This programs the exploding shell with a digital 'fuse' basically. When the shell is fired just over (or next to) the target's cover, it flies just past and then the shell's internal computer tells it to explode, blasting the target with shrapnel. Apparently it "is lethal within a radius of several meters", which means it isn't exactly a tiny explosion.



The implications of this are pretty interesting - it seems like it would push opposing ground troops away from engaging in rifle exchanges within the 500m effective range of this gun, as there would be no way to hide unless the opposing gunmen had fully enclosed cover. That range "is nearly double the range of the AK-47", a cheap rifle used by many groups around the world, giving a distinct tactical advantage to technologically advanced ground troops carrying the XM25. Pretty interesting shift in ground combat that this could bring about.

Tech Thursday: Nobelist Harold Kroto on 60 Second Science

In a recent episode of Scientific American's "60 Second Science" podcast, Nobel laureate Harold Kroto is quoted on the importance of each individual finding the evidence to support the facts they believe, rather than believe what they're told.

This seems self-evident, but think of his example - do you know the actual evidence behind the Copernican claim that the Earth orbits the sun? How to prove it given the astronomical facts? I sure don't. A very simple, thought-provoking mental exercise.

Required Reading: "Lessons of a $618,616 Death"

Rather than discuss this at length, I'd like to use this Friday to just present Business Week's cover article titled "Lessons of a $618,616 Death" by Amanda Bennett. It's a personal story, and to me with its simplicity and candor stacks up with the best non-fiction short stories. The article's straightforward questioning of health care reminds me of the best of Atul Gawande. Its breakdown of the facts and figures of the charges, bills, and insurance coverage strikes me as the best anecdotal analysis I've seen of where our health care system currently stands.

The Greatest of All Time - Unitas vs Einstein vs The Beatles

It started with a simple enough question - Who would you list as the top 5 QBs of all time? Seemed like a reasonable list of guys like Marino, Montana, Favre, Manning, et al until Aaron threw in an older name: Johnny Unitas. Wha? And then I had to get all meta-debate on us... Isn't the question at the crux of any "best of all time" debate really how much credit to give to the pioneers of a given field, and how much do you credit the record-setting achievements of those whose work is made possible by their forebears?

It applies across any field