For those of you interested in the physics of train crashes, there’s an excerpt from the book in the latest issue of Scientific American.
From the excerpt from the book:
Sigh.
The article ‘scientifically’ explains the how the Spanish train (and other overspeed in curves) derailed. Nothing more and nothing less.
I found it ominous that they demonstrated utter ignorance of the physics of negative cant deficiency with respect to overturning or tendency to derail. In a supposedly definitive article in a nominally scientific magazine.
OOOHHH PULLLEEEZE! Calling “Scientific American”, ‘nominally scientific’, is like saying the “National Enquirer” is ‘socially responsible’. if you think that what you read in SA has improved your understanding of something scientific, you need to get your tinfoil hat adjusted.
As a physicist and engineer, I have read plenty of things in Scientific American that have improved my knowledge of scientific issues. And I have no need to adjust the propeller on my hat when saying so.
True, very often there’s an effort to phrase the ‘science’ in lay terms, and sometimes things are dumbed down to what a person with a good typical liberal-arts education can understand. But that is worlds better … for the purpose of educating people via a mass publication … than much of the tripe I read in peer-reviewed journals.
I do agree that the National Enquirer is far less than ‘socially responsible’, though.
My experience is that Scientific American now is not of the same caliber as it was up to the 1980’s. They used to get the location of the Hale Telescope right - i.e. on Palomar Mountain - a minor point, but it does show attention to detail.
- Erik