Hannah Beldotti
AP Biology
February 13, 2018
Current Event #16
Chang, Kenneth. “New Form of Water, Both Liquid and Solid, Is 'Really Strange'.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 5 Feb. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/superionic-water-neptune-uranus.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
This week, I read the article, “New Form of Water, Both Liquid, and Solid, Is “Really Strange.” The author elaborated on a form of water that is simultaneously a liquid and solid. This “superionic” water, “consists of a rigid lattice of oxygen atoms through which positively charged hydrogen nuclei move.” Although it has not been found on Earth, the new form of water is thought to be available on Neptune and Uranus’ mantles. Author Kenneth Chang explains the water in greater detail by stating, “The heat melts the chemical bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The high pressure keeps the larger and heavier oxygen atoms stacked in a fixed crystal alignment — a solid — while the hydrogen nuclei, or ions, flow through — a liquid.” In the article, different experiments that scientists have performed and investigated are stated along with an explanation of how they study the water. For example, to stimulate the “superionic” water, researchers at Lawrence Livermore and the University of Rochester, increased the pressure and temperature of water to create similar conditions to those in Uranus and Neptune. Kenneth Chang, science reporter for the New York Times since 2000, goes into great depth on the experiment, “...first squeezed water between two pieces of diamond with a pressure of 360,000 pounds per square inch...The researchers then took the compressed ice, packed in carry-on luggage, to the University of Rochester where it was blasted by a pulse of laser light...heating it to thousands of degrees and exerting a pressure more than a million times that of Earth’s atmosphere.” The results of the experiments aided scientists in providing an explanation of Uranus and Neptune’s, “lopsided, off-center magnetic fields.”
Overall, I thought the author did a commendable job of thoroughly explaining the discovery and experimentation that came with it. However, there were some improvements that should be considered. First, the author continuously says how “Long theorized to be found in the mantles of Uranus and Neptune, the confirmation of the existence of superionic ice could lead to the development of new materials,” yet, he never elaborates on the materials. I think it would have been more effective to state new materials that scientists are working towards developing. Secondly, the author neglects to inform the reader of how this study societal impact. However, it can be assumed that this is not entirely known. On the other hand, I applaud the author’s detail throughout the article. For example, when he described the experiments that scientist performed.
I came away from reading the article with a lot of new knowledge acquired. Not only did I learn about the chemical composition of superionic water, but I also learned how scientists stimulate it and conditions on other planets. Also, I learned how this information can be applied to theories having to do with our solar system. Overall, I thought this article was well written, informative, and interesting.
Gigi Chrappa
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event Comment
March 1, 2018
Chang, Kenneth. “New Form of Water, Both Liquid and Solid, Is 'Really Strange'.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 5 Feb. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/superionic-water-neptune-uranus.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
This week, I decided to read Hannah’s review of the article, “New Form of Water, Both Liquid and Solid, Is 'Really Strange”. I was intrigued by the title of her review and decided to read the article. Hannah does a great job of including several direct quotes from the NY Times article to provide a feel for the writing by Kenneth Chang in her review. This is important because, depending on the reader, they may or may not be interested in reading the article due to the language/style of writing of the author. In addition to this, Hannah does an incredible job critiquing and summarizing the article she chose. She does both of these tasks very professionally and briefly. This is important so that the reader of Hannah’s review does not get bored while reading her review. Lastly, Hannah does a wonderful job of referencing several different sources for possible information. For example, Hannah mentions the author of the article, Kenneth Chang, the University of Rochester, and several others. This adds an overall sense of credibility to the article.
Hannah wrote a wonderful review and there are very few things that she would need improve upon. In the future, Hannah may want to explain some of the chemistry terms in a little more detail. This would help the readers understand certain chemistry topics that are imperative to understanding the article. Lastly, Hannah could possibly provide some theories as to how this discovery may be important in the future. It would be interesting to hear what impact she might think that this discovery will have on science.
In conclusion, Hannah wrote a beautiful review of the article she chose. She successfully kept the reader's attention. She chose to review a very difficult article (with many difficult key concepts) and successfully explained them throughout her article. I look forward to reading Chang’s article in the near future.