So much good science going on here. Original experimental setup to turn a stochastic process into a repeatable one. Proper application of computational methods to study experimental results. Albeit I think I can see some problems with the AIMD work, it doesn't diminish the overall result. Really a fantastic piece of work.

I'm a theoretical chemistry phd student. I'm curious, how do you think the simulations could have been improved?

Phil Mason has a video about this research[1] on his YouTube channel. There are several others on there about intermediate results.

[1] http://youtu.be/LmlAYnFF_s8

> He wrote of how, as a boy, he and his friends bought a lump of sodium from the local chemicals supplier...

Whenever I read stuff like I this, it saddens me just how much safety and common sense have eroded the spirit of scientific experimentation. These days, the most reactive chemical in a chemistry set is sodium bicarbonate.

You can still purchase sodium from chemical suppliers, schools just aren't quite as relaxed about letting kids play with it. Even college students can get in trouble: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N37/sodiumdrop.html I doubt throwing a chunk of sodium into the Charles really helped further "scientific experimentation" all that much... It did get a lot of beach cleanup volunteers injured, and caused significant property damage, though.

Perhaps "scientific experimentation" was a bit much. But still, I can easily imagine that incident kindling the yearning for knowledge in a young man, perhaps setting him on the path of being a scientist. At the very least, I think it's a somewhat safe bet it influenced his study of sodium later in life, and we did gain some knowledge from his studies.

I am of course not saying every kid that plays with sodium will become interested in science, just that perhaps this one wouldn't have, otherwise.

Did you read the article? "That incident" was a frathouse at MIT dumping sodium into the river... If a kid gets into MIT, gets into a fraternity, and doesn't have some sort of scientific yearning kindled in him, I really don't think sodium in the Charles is going to do it.

Nothing bad to say about the science, but the (casual? blasé?) wording of this really bothered me:

> Jungwirth’s colleague Philip Mason was determined to find out what was really going on — despite the hazards. In one run, he removed his face shield to blow out a small fire, only to have a piece of metal go off in his face, scratching his cheek.

You almost certainly don’t want to read ‘Things I Won’t Work With’ then: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with...

TIWWW often mocks the blasé wording of this kind of reports or articles, the things you really don't want to read are the source texts.

I very, very strongly recommend reading Ignition!, it is truly awesome (it's the source for "Sand won't save you this time" and the book would be well worth its weight in rare metals if it were still possible to find the thing in any other form than a PDF)

Sand won't save you this time...

That's pretty standard for many scientists.

The point is that it shouldn't be. Removing personal protective equipment? The amount of people I know who've had very narrow escapes for completely unnecessary reasons... and yet people are still cavalier about it. I just don't understand.

So that's why too much sodium intake is bad for you. ;)

Incidentally, the news from Prague 70 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Bombing_of_Prague

No, I suppose you're right. That's not at all fascinating to consider...

We should just remain comfortably cocooned in our contextual containers.

You're being downvoted because your comment has no relationship to the submission or the discussion.

Incorrect, but, ultimately, I don't give a fuck.