Zach+March

I thought it was interesting that they recycled tires for use in these fields. It was also interesting that the author noted the significant cost difference between the track and the field, arising because the field rubber is recycled whereas the track rubber is new. The author mentioned the use of magnets to remove metal fragments from the tires, but I wonder how they would remove glass and other substances that are not magnetic, but would still be harmful to players.

I read the article on hydrogen fuel-cell cars. The part that I found particularly interesting was the dilemma the author identified: hydrogen cars necessarily require hydrogen refueling stations, yet hydrogen refueling stations are not profitable unless there are hydrogen cars on the road. Thus, hydrogen fuel-cell automotive technology will remain obscure until it becomes more accepted. I also found it unfortunate to hear that hydrogen power technology is so expensive, as it seems like a perfect solution to the energy crisis given its benign product of water. However, I think it would be quite interesting to examine the hydrogen fuel-cell plan in a full-circle fashion: where is the hydrogen coming from? It’s the most abundant element in the universe, but on earth, how would hydrogen be obtained in its elemental form? Would it require the electrolysis of water, which requires a great deal of energy, and if that is so, is the amount of energy saved truly that great?

I thought the author's discussion about the disbelief of many Einstein-era scientists about atomic theory was interesting. It is really strange to think about a time when people thought that matter just was, and there was nothing more to it, compared with today's study for a unified theory of all matter. I also thought that the photoelectric effect was interesting and unusual. I remember learning about it last year, but I can't picture parts of metal being removed by light particles. The part that I enjoyed most was the discussion about the warping of time. I thought the author's introductory anecdote was very intriguing; I never considered that we can never know the exact time, because the light takes an amount of time to travel to our eye. That made it much more clear to understand Einstein's theory that as you move in the opposite direction at teh speed of light, the time can never catch up with you, while the time on your watch would continue to tick normally.

Out of all of the proposed models, the one that I thought was most intriguing was the three dimensional "Periodic Round Table." Perhaps that is what is needed to appropriately address all of the connections between elements rather than a two-dimensional table. However, the table that I found most likely to take over was Scerri's version. Still, I thought this version was somewhat strange because of the plan to bring the halogens and noble gases to the left of the alkali metals. In the end, I find it doubtful that a new table of elements would overtake the current plan. The current version does, after all, group elements logically, and there is much information that can be deduced about elements with a little knowledge about periodic table trends. And, most importantly, generations of scientists have become familiar with this version and thus would likely prefer it to a new, unfamiliar version.