| Can I Come Look At These Items? | | This online store is in association with Amazon.com, so these great, high-qualiy products will come from their warehouse or from other partners. Thanks for shopping! |
|
|
|
Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines | 
 enlarge | Author: Richard A. Muller
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Category: Book
List Price: $26.95
Buy New: $16.54
You Save: $10.41 (39%)
New (19) Used (3) from $16.54
Avg. Customer Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 2679
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 354
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.5
Dimensions (in): 9.5 x 6.1 x 1.3
ISBN: 0393066274
Dewey Decimal Number: 530
EAN: 9780393066272
ASIN: 0393066274
Publication Date: August 4, 2008 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Learn the science behind the headlines—the tools of terrorists, the dangers of nuclear power, and the reality of global warming.
We live in complicated, dangerous times. They are also hyper-technical times. As citizens who will elect future presidents of the most powerful and influential country in the world, we need to know—truly understand, not just rely on television's talking heads—if Iran's nascent nuclear capability is a genuine threat to the West, if biochemical weapons are likely to be developed by terrorists, if there are viable alternatives to fossil fuels that should be nurtured and supported by the government, if nuclear power should be encouraged, and if global warming is actually happening. This book is written in everyday, nontechnical language on the science behind the concerns that our nation faces in the immediate future. Even active readers of serious journalism will be surprised by the lessons that the book contains. It is "must-have" information for all presidents—and citizens—of the twenty-first century. 50 illustrations.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 3 more reviews...
 An excellent book for any voter to read August 5, 2008
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
Muller's basic thesis is that we are sure we know certain things, but these things are actually false. He aims to give the basic science behind current issues like climate change, alternative energy sources, nuclear proliferation, and space.
I am not a scientist, but I often spent my time in high school study halls perusing physics texts rather than doing my homework. This book spares the reader all manner of arcane formulae and mathematics. It tries to present the bottom line on why and how things work they way they do. The net effect is to neutralize many fears common among the public. For example, a nuclear reactor cannot explode like an atomic bomb. It does not have the right kind of uranium and should something go wrong, the nuclear reaction naturally stops of its own.
Muller tries to distinguish between the science of something and its interpretation for what ought be done about an issue. When he violates his own rules for his book, he tries to tell the reader he is doing that.
Some basic factual information is repeated several times in the book. While that could be annoying, it serves to reinforce those concepts.
I found some parts of the book more interesting than others and expect that will be true for any other readers. But, those parts of greater interest to others may be the parts I found less interesting. This would be a good book for any voter to read. Our public discourse would be based more on facts and less on feeling. Still, as the author indicates, there are some areas where the science alone does not dictate how a decision should be made in some problem issue. Maybe the science is not even conclusive as science.
 Steel melts @ 2500 DF; jet fuel burns @ about 1800 DF. August 5, 2008
1 out of 22 found this review helpful
Issue: "The burning jet fuel that took down the twin towers ... ." (From review of Muller's book in S.F. Chronicle, 8-3-08, by Graeme Wood, editor at Atlantic).
The physics of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel do not provide an explanation as to the twin towers collapse.
Wood writes in his review of Muller's book:
"Muller has lucid explanations of how the World Trade Center collapsed ... ."
"The burning jet fuel that took down the twin towers ... ." (from the review of Muller's book).
This is not possible due to the physics of the problem:
Steel has a melting point of about 1370 Degrees C, or about 2500 Degrees F.
(Source Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983 edition, Vol 14, page 243).
Jet fuel when mixed in precise proportions with air will burn briefly at about 1800 Degrees F. The "open air" burn temperature of jet fuel is much lower. In fact "turbine inlet temperatures cannot exceed about 1100 Degrees C, or about 2000 Degrees F, because of the thermal limitations of the materials" in the jet engine. (Ibid, Vol 15, page 42). This temperature is INSIDE the jet engine with highly compressed air burning with the jet fuel in the "combustion chamber," not the "open air" burning temperature of jet fuel which took place in the Twin Towers.
A google search under "burning jet fuel temperature" is instructive.
Muller has not proved "lucid explanations of how the World Trade Center collapsed ... ."
It is intriguing that Muller, a "polymath in Berkeley's physics department," (Wood) is presenting "physics" which do not agree with the physics of the problem he is discussing.
#1 Thinking Persons Primer on Climate, Energy, Weapons, Gore August 3, 2008
9 out of 9 found this review helpful
This is a primer on energy, climate, and weapons, and is the best of Professor Muller's #1 student rated course at Berkeley. He teaches hundreds of students per year and any reader what you need to know to join the debate. He is non political, but the topic is not. He demonstrates that: electric battery cars will not save the planet because they are still too expensive (@$4.00 per gallon), that solar still has a low return on investment, that wind power is good but limited, and that the risks of more nuclear energy plants (20% of U.S. energy usage versus 70% in France) is less than advertised. The professor shows that much of our current discussion is based on incorrect "facts" and sound bites, which can lead to incorrect policy. He shows that even Al Gore's graphs may give the wrong impression of "facts" and undermine Gore's message. Anyone that is interested in efficient use of energy, political decision making on nuclear and solar, how to control nuclear weapons, and how to be thoughtful about what to do about global warming, needs to understand the basics and basis presented here. There is not a lot of formula work or calculations required, however I found it better to take notes as I read. If you become more interested go to itunes and get his up to 50 hours of course lectures.
 I dunno if I'd trust a President who read this for PHYSICS guidance July 30, 2008
7 out of 29 found this review helpful
The idea of the title is good, teach someone as busy and often-sidetracked as a President some of the fundamentals of a Science. But if I may humbly say... the book tends to read more like it should have been titled "Because I have a soapbox and some fans I've let it go to my head and here are my non-science personal beliefs and feelings on what a President should do about policy"
Hit the store and just flip to that Humans In Space chapter. Just read that short one and I think you'll see what I mean. You thought you were holding a book on the Science of Physics, but really you're being told - with NO basis in the Science Of Physics that a President should not even consider sending Humans Beings beyond low Earth Orbit. Why? Because robots are better ... Why? Is it because the author is also a Master of Robotics and A.I. technologies or Space Medicine? Nope, humans should stay home and watch Space happen on TV simply because the author says so, that's why ;-)
Hmmm.. maybe "humans should not be allowed to do things that We Smarter And Elite People can program a machine to do" is what a grant-chaser really believes and maybe even what one or two Future Presidents would like to hear. But it's not Physics.
I brought my copy back. There were other books on Physics that a regular person could get real-world related Physics information from... ones that actually were about the Science.
But that's just me.
Very basic physics plus logic and conversions = Clarity July 27, 2008
14 out of 14 found this review helpful
Although there are a few graphs and diagrams and a lot of numbers and units, I think this book is accessible to any reader with a citizen's interest in energy, terrorism, nuclear weapons and nuclear power (not the same!), and climate change. You don't have to consider yourself a future president to want and really need to understand this stuff - all elected officials and voters should have this level of familiarity with the science (and often engineering) behind these important issues. And it's really not that hard to follow - it's very readable.
There are no equations here (OK, a few in the notes if you're interested), and the "physics" comes mainly in the approach, breaking problems down into essentials to which basic concepts like energy conservation and efficiency can be applied. A lot can be accomplished simply by converting energy and other quantities in different situations into common units (Muller uses mainly common US units rather than metric units that physicists use in their real work).
It is true that Muller does not completely remove his own opinions in favor of "pure science" - but this is a book for general readers, not a text book (he also has a text book version for his course at UC Berkeley). And the issues are real-world issues, not abstract physics problems. But for the most part he is combining basic science with logic and common sense, and if you learn to do this yourself, and remember some of the conversions and rules of thumb he discusses, you will be better able judge for yourself whether some claim about energy or terrorism really makes sense, and have a better calibration of risks and opportunities in this complex world.
P.S. I was a physics major and have a masters in optics, but I also do educational outreach programs, so I'm really viewing this more from the perspective of an educator and citizen than as a science-educated person. And I personally learned a lot. Also note that one review from 2007 really applies to Dr. Muller's textbook, not this new general interest book.
|
|
|
| |
News 
