Sunday’s ad is for Falstaff, from 1970. Featuring soul singer James Brown, whose birthday is today. He did an ad for Falstaff in which he’s shown belting out a song in a dozen sequential photos on a black background. Below there’s a simple photos of a glass of Falstaff beer with a can next to it and the interesting tagline “This family brews beer better.”
Archives for May 3, 2015
Patent No. 2630311A: Apparatus For Drying Hops
Today in 1953, US Patent 2630311 A was issued, an invention of Verlin A. Bloxham, for his “Apparatus For Drying Hops.” There’s no Abstract, but in the description it states that the “invention relates to an apparatus for drying hops. The apparatus commonly employed heretofore for drying hops includes a house-like structure having a reticulated floor upon which the hops are loaded. This floor may be some 20 feet above the ground. Beneath the floor is disposed a heater burning fuel of one sort or another. The products of combustion from the heater usually pass through a zig-Zag or similar arrangement of pipes. located perhaps 8 feet beneath the floor on the way to the chimney. Forced draft of air is not provided, but the house is built tall enough, compared to its section, to provide a stack effect.”
How To Spot Bad Science
Longtime readers of the Bulletin know that I’m constantly examining and finding fault with questionable studies used by the modern prohibitionist groups using them to promote their agenda. I’m often amazed at some of the studies that make it into peer-reviewed journals. Apparently I’m not the only one. A British chemistry teacher, Andy Brunning, in his spare time, writes a great blog entitled “Compound Interest,” in which he “aims to take a closer look at the chemical compounds we come across on a day-to-day basis.” He created A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science, inspired by scientific research he looked at “which drew questionable conclusions from their results.” It “looks at the different factors that can contribute towards ‘bad’ science.”
The vast majority of people will get their science news from online news site articles, and rarely delve into the research that the article is based on. Personally, I think it’s therefore important that people are capable of spotting bad scientific methods, or realising when articles are being economical with the conclusions drawn from research, and that’s what this graphic aims to do. Note that this is not a comprehensive overview, nor is it implied that the presence of one of the points noted automatically means that the research should be disregarded. This is merely intended to provide a rough guide to things to be alert to when either reading science articles or evaluating research.
It’s nice to see an overview of a dozen of the more common ways in which studies are misused and the results are misrepresented. Sad to say, I see these all the time, so much so that I’ve started to question the way journals operate and how they select and accept articles. There are so many journals nowadays that they either are desperate for content and thus have lower standards than they used to, or the journals themselves have an agenda they’re promoting instead of simply providing a forum for progress in science. But this should give you a good start at figuring out why the next story you see about a study doesn’t seem to make any sense.
Patent No. 2468840A: Heater For Wort Kettles
Today in 1949, US Patent 2468840 A was issued, an invention of Robert C. Schock, for his “Heater For Wort Kettles.” There’s no Abstract, but in the description it states that the “invention relates to means and methods of heating wort prior to its use in the making of beer.” A little later on, they add that the “invention comprises a heating unit having varying heat units supplied to it for their exchange with a mass to be heated, and to keep said mass heated, such exchange taking place at relatively lower temperatures, then at relatively higher temperatures, and then again at lower temperatures, the latter if desired.”