The result to leave the EU will have come as a surprise to many. As an Early Career Scientist I was particularly hoping that the UK would vote to remain, and was resoundingly disappointed as I checked my phone at 4 am to see that the leave campaign were going to clinch it. I have worked hard over the past six years completing a Masters and PhD to get my feet on the bottom of a very competitive ladder. All of a sudden I saw this slipping away. How hard will it be for me to find a job in two years time? Will I have to abandon my desire for an academic career? Should I start looking now for alternatives? Over the weekend I have had time to contemplate, whilst I thoroughly disagree with the decision to leave the EU, I have come to the conclusion that it is much too soon to run into any rash decisions.
I have read a number of articles and the facts associated with the benefit of the EU to UK science are quite simple. The UK receives more from the EU in scientific funding than it pays in and has done very well out of being part of the EU. Freedom of movement for students, graduate students, post-docs and above within the EU allows EU individuals to travel and work within the majority of EU countries. UK science is strong and therefore is a commensurately strong draw for the most talented individuals from the EU. If you haven't yet seen this video by an EU Law Expert, Professor Dougan, then I urge you to, it is an eye opening, honest and factual account of what the UK gains from the EU (in general). He also gives his views on EU Immigration in this article. The uncertainties surrounding Brexit are significantly more complex. I could go through a number of possible avenues, however, the future relationship of the UK with the EU is a complete unknown. Herein lies the problem, there is no plan. As a result of this uncertainty, UK science faces a period of uncertainty. With access to funding, scientists have more money for research, with access to the free market job positions can be filled by the very best candidates in the UK and EU. However, this also provides UK citizens with ability to study and research abroad. Over the years this has led to the development of a fantastic multi-cultural and highly productive scientific community, which needs to be retained. In my own research all of my papers have been published and supported with the help of EU partners (and some specific European Research Council grants), specifically in Italy, although EU money supporting the work was not sourced within the UK. What does this mean? On the face of it, nothing. We will continue to work with our European colleagues, it will just be a bit more expensive for us to work abroad! Volcanology in particular is an area which requires significant international collaboration. Often when discussing my job with others I get the reply "But there are no [active] volcanoes in Britain". The UK volcanology community will therefore continue to collaborate internationally, within and without of the EU, regardless of what happens to our relationship with the EU. It is just a question of how difficult that will become. Until we know more on what the future relationship will be uncertainties will prevail over the next few years. I sincerely hope that this decision does not leave Early Career Scientists with a reduction in job prospects, not just in the UK, but throughout the EU. More than ever, we need to come together as a community, the decision has been made and we need to make it work for everyone. Myself, along with a number of other authors in Sheffield, Lancaster, Palermo, and Florence have just published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters called "Conduit dynamics and post explosion degassing on Stromboli: A combined UV camera and numerical modeling treatment". This paper is full Open Access which means that anyone can download and distribute the paper which is absolutely great! This work combines a large number of ultra violet camera based observations of sulphur dioxide release during and following strombolian explosions (which is called a gas flux trace) and smaller degassing events not necessarily associated with ejectiles (i.e. any magma release). Within the paper these are referred to as Vent 1 and Vent 2 events respectively. The benefit of collecting such a large number of gas flux traces is that any trends present or common characteristics between differing events can be compared. This allowed six flux trace types to be identified based on the patterns in gas release following the initial impulsive event associated with a strombolian explosion or smaller degassing event. Following on from this, building on the work of Tamburello et al. (2012) who noticed that gas flux traces from strombolian explosions contained a coda (a period of elevated flux before a return to background levels), we were able to approximately separate out the distribution of gas mass into the initial impulsive gas release and the resultant coda. This allowed us to determine that a large proportion of the entire event (i.e. the initial release of gas added to the coda) could be contained within the coda - quite an interesting observation! Alongside this work we performed a number of computational fluid dynamics simulations (using Ansys Fluent) of gas slug flow (Taylor bubble - see previous post). Over a range of parameters for the magma density, viscosity, and the conduit diameter we discovered that it was possible for the simulated gas slugs to shed gas bubbles, called "daughter bubbles", from the base of the slug at varying rates of efficiency. If these slugs were to rise over extended distances (simulations in the manuscript were over short distances in comparison to a full volcanic conduit) then significant mass could be lost from the slug into a daughter bubble train and contribute to the observed gas coda. There are of course other possibilities for the coda generation, however, daughter bubble could certainly play a role in determining how explosive an event may become and has wider implications for activity at other volcanoes. This is the first study to combine gas flux measurements with computational fluid dynamics models. For full details you will of course have to read the paper! Associated videos are also available. References Pering, T. D., A. J. S. McGonigle, M. R. James, G. Tamburello, A. Aiuppa, D. Delle Donne, and M. Ripepe (2016), Conduit dynamics and post explosion degassing on Stromboli: A combined UV camera and numerical modeling treatment,Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, doi:10.1002/2016GL069001. Tamburello, G., A. Aiuppa, E. P. Kantzas, A. J. S. McGonigle, and M. Ripepe (2012), Passive vs. active degassing modes at an open-vent volcano (Stromboli, Italy), Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 359–360, 106–116. Last night I gave my Pint of Science talk in Sheffield and hopefully those who came learnt a thing or two about bubbles and their role in driving volcanic eruptions! My talk gave an overview of the range of activities that I study, from passive degassing through to lava fountaining, with a major focus on strombolian eruptions. In particular I discussed the role of volcanic gas slugs in generating such eruptions and some of the features which we have discovered during the course of my research at the University of Sheffield, including: past work at Etna which provided the first potential evidence for coalescence of gas slugs during volcanic activity, recent work just published in Geophysical Research Letters on the combination of gas measurements with computational models which demonstrated the possibility of daughter bubble production (the release of gas bubbles from the base of a slug) and that this could essentially cause slugs to destroy themselves (I will blog on this work soon), finally I introduced work I presented at AGU in 2014 which we are currently writing up for publication on laboratory and computational experiments conducted into multiple slug flow. The journey of Bob the Bubble proved to be a popular addition to my talk, raising a few chuckles (video below). Bob the Bubble illustrates the journey of a gas bubble from a magma chamber, through a conduit and the shape (morphology) transitions which may occur throughout ascent. As part of my talk I also performed a few short demonstration experiments (see photo) on the coalescence of smaller bubbles to make a cap bubble, through to an ascending slug. With the kind assistance of Tom Wilkes we even managed to demo a series of slug coalescence events which worked perfectly on the first try. This was rather fortuitous as it didn't really work during testing on the previous day! Dr Ed Daw of LIGO heritage spoke after my talk and gave some fascinating insights into the science and what it really took to detect gravity waves! He also hinted that further discoveries may be coming soon... A very enjoyable event which it was a pleasure to be a part of. A big up to all the volunteers who made this event happen in Sheffield! Over the past 3 years I have delved into a large variety of topics in varying arrays of detail. However, a major theme throughout my work has been the investigation into the fluid dynamics of bubbles, and in particular a feature known as a Taylor bubble (or gas slug) e.g.Wallis (1969) and Bendiksen, (1985). Increasing mass and/or volume of a bubble its shape will naturally change, from a spherical bubble (Wegener and Parlange, 1973) to one that may elongate or deform, through to a cap bubble and then the Taylor bubble. The Figure on the right hand side illustrates this nicely. One of the major activities driven by the Taylor bubble is strombolian volcanism, be it that related to single events (as at Stromboli) or more rapid events, as I have previously observed at Etna. The Taylor bubble has a number of predictable parameters, including: the distances between the wall and the Taylor bubble edge (termed the falling film), the rise speed of the base of the Taylor bubble, and certain lengths associated with the passage of the bubble - the wake and interaction lengths (Campos and Guedes de Carvalho, 1988). In addition there are a number of dimensionless numbers which help characterise the behaviour of a gas bubble within a fluid, e.g. Reynolds, Morton, Eotvos, and Weber numbers. Within volcanology one area of focus is on the determination of the masses of these Taylor bubbles (i.e. using ultra-violet cameras), which can then be used to work out final lengths and possible burst pressures of the bubbles. All of these parameters above require a set of distinct equations to calculate, which, can sometimes be difficult to locate. There are very few (in fact I didn't find any) resources available online for the calculation of many of these parameters and their calculation often involves the loading up of software such as Matlab. It is for these reasons that I have created an online calculator to enable the calculation of a range of useful (to me and hopefully to others!) dimensionless numbers and Taylor bubble related features. This resource is available here, and for the moment I have called it the "Slug Calculator". It is currently split into two sections. The first "Dimensionless Numbers and Taylor Bubble Parameters" essentially allows the calculation of parameters related to the section title, while the second "Taylor Bubble Mass and Length Inputs/Results" uses pressure, temperature, mass and ratio values (of the common volcanic gases) to estimate a variety of potentially important Taylor Bubble parameters. The calculator is a work in progress, so will be improved and altered as I notice errors or learn how to make improvements! References Bendiksen, K. H., 1985. On the motion of long bubbles in vertical tubes. International Journal of Multiphase Flow 11 (6), 797-812, doi:10.1016/0301-9322(85)90025-4 Campos, J. B. L. M., Guedes de Carvalho, J. R. F., 1988. An experimental study of the wake of gas slugs rising in liquids, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 196, 27-37, doi:10.1017/S0022112088002599 Pering, 2015. Bubbles in Basalts: Measuring and Modelling Basaltic Degassing. PhD Thesis, 2015. University of Sheffield. Wallis, G. B., 1969. One-dimensional two-phase flow. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Wegener, P. P., Parlange, J. Y., 1973. Spherical-Cap Bubbles. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 5, 79-100. doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.05.010173.000455 This year Pint of Science is coming to Sheffield. I will be in esteemed company with Dr Ed Daw who will be talking about gravitational waves detected as part of the LIGO experiment in a combined event called Ripples and Bangs. I will of course be contributing the "Bangs" part of the event - where I will discuss my previous, ongoing and future research into the behaviour of bubbles at basaltic volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions are one of the most spectacular phenomena we see on this planet. Through the medium of beer, I will explain the journey of the gas bubbles which drive these eruptions, from birth, to eruption at the surface. I will explore how we investigate these bubbles, by using state-of-the-art monitoring equipment to measure gas output and computer models to simulate gas flow. Fully unlocking the secrets of this journey is an essential future goal in volcanology, where any progress made will play a key part in aiding eruption forecasting. This is a ticketed event on the 25th May 2016 in Bloo 88, tickets are available for purchase here. As those will have ever attended EGU will testify - it is very very expensive. This year, I was only partially funded by my department (many thanks to them for the money that was provided!), so I tried in earnest to keep costs down. So here are a number of hopefully helpful tips:
I hope these will be of help to someone! The long awaited follow-up to "What if your supervisor was from Lord of the Rings", conveniently timed for the first episode of Season 6: Game of Thrones Academics. Professor Ned Stark - Possibly the most popular member of staff in the department. Specialises in the study of wolves and winter migration. However, is so bad with internal politics that when he upsets the balance of power he gets sacked. Academic Rating: 7/10. Dr. Jon Snow - The youngest ever Head of Department, remarkably talented for his age. Over-estimates his ability to lead those many times his own age. Ends up leaving the academic career path abruptly. Followed in his Uncles footsteps studying the physics of large ice masses. Academic Rating: 5/10. Dr. Melisandre - Not who she appears to be. A bit of a pyromaniac who loves studying fire, but may not be as good as she thinks she is. Liable to move around from University to University at will. Academic Rating: 4/10. Dr. Tyrion Lannister - Don't let his size deceive you. Tyrion is perhaps the most intelligent scientist in the department, however, he prefers to spend his time drinking than actually working. A Historian presently working overseas. Academic Rating: 5/10. Dr. Jaime Lannister (The Kingslayer) - Very good at his job and experienced when conducting field work. An unfortunate accident meant that he got lost in the field for a few years. Has no desire to advance his position. Academic Rating: 8/10. Professor Cersei Lannister - A social scientist with lots of money, tends not to actually do any work, preferring to delegate to minions. Ideas are often deluded. Academic Rating: 4/10. Littlefinger - Works in an independent institution. His work is so clouded in mystery that no one is really sure of his true qualifications or what he actually studies. Has never been known to collaborate fully with anyone - liable to steal your work. Has dreams of becoming Pro Vice-Chancellor. Academic Rating: 3/10. Dr. Davos Seaworth (The Onion Knight) - Didn't ever get round to completing an undergraduate degree, so struggled to gain the respect of his colleagues when awarded his PhD. But after many years has proven himself a worthy and fair academic. Specialises in the study of advanced farming techniques. Academic Rating: 9/10. Arya Stark - A Masters student who has a promising future if we she would follow the advice of her elders. Has shown an interest in advanced cosmetic surgery from an early stage. Academic Rating: 8/10. Dr. Daenerys Targaryen - Recently graduated PhD student who has delusions of grandeur. Specialises in political science. Has experience collaborating across a number of sectors. Has already sent ripples throughout the academic world championing Open Access science. Has a gift for languages which is highly valuable. Academic Rating: 8/10. Disclaimer: The above descriptions are fictional. It is meant an amusing and general look at academic life which should not be taken seriously. Any resemblance to real people is a huge huge huge coincidence. Two days of fantastic volcanic science. This year was the year of 3D science. From investigating bubble distribution in rocks through to models of lava flows - three dimensions were being used to their full effect. This was also the busiest EGU I have been to, either that or the volcanic sessions are becoming more popular! Seats were hard to come by unless you were arrived early to sessions - this meant a sprawl of scientists leaning against walls and perched on the floor! Monday started with "Magma ascent, degassing, and eruption dynamics" where a number interesting talks set my conference off at a good pace. Matthias Hort discussed the use of doppler radar to estimate the length of bursting bubbles at volcanoes such as Stromboli and Yasur - an interesting alternative to traditional gas measurements, using seismicity or even infrasound. The session continued with a look at patterns in lava lakes, from the intriguing plate tectonics displayed at Kilauea and Erta Ale, to the turbulence surface at Marum and the relative stability at Erebus. Patrick Allard finished off the morning pre-coffee break session with a very thorough and interesting discussion, investigating a range of results from Ambrym volcano and the Marum and Benbow lava lakes, including a relatively thorough look at degassing in a bid to understand aspects such as magma ascent rate and the depth and volume of storage bodies. I finished the day listening to a range of talks on atmospheric emissions from voclanoes. Tuesday was the turn of "Volcanic Gas Emissions" where a number of presentations ranging from soil degassing on Stromboli to oscillating ratios of Bromine Oxide to Sulphur Dioxide on Cotopaxi which may be related to Earth tides. Of course this was also the session I presented in (see right). See picture above. I decided to finish the main section of the Tuesday afternoon talks in a session dedicated to Planetary Sciences. In particular I was interested in talk on the geology of Pluto and Charon - with features created from the varying behaviours of Nitrogen and Water ice. In addition the presenter gave his two cents on the possible volcanoes, Wright Mons and Piccard Mons. This year was the first time I ventured to the ice breaker on the Sunday evening and I would highly recommend that others do the same, it was a great chance to meet up with friends and colleagues. The days of the conference can be very busy and it is often difficult to meet up with all the people you want to. I came home on the Wednesday to play in the University of Sheffield varsity ice hockey match, making my EGU trip shorter than usual! Another year, and another EGU, my third so far. Again, I am looking forward to a couple of days of sciencey goodness. This year I am trying to do EGU on a budget, which is not an easy task! Perhaps I shall blog a few tips afterwards. I shall be attending volcanic sessions on Monday and Tuesday and will blog about some of the fascinating science that is presented during oral sessions and posters. Looking forward to seeing new and familiar faces! I will be presenting on "Gas Emissions and Slug Dynamics" on Tuesday at 11 am. I will be talking about work conducted comparing UV camera measurements of a large number of events at Stromboli and computational simulations of slug flow. My abstract is below: Abstract: We present UV camera data for 200 strombolian and hornito degassing events at Stromboli during June and July 2014. This data was processed to calculate SO2 masses for each event. In addition to calculating SO2 masses of the slugs which generate these events we also observe periods of elevated flux following events, termed the gas coda, lasting ≈ 30 – 180 s, which we also calculate SO2masses for. This provided a range of explosive plus coda SO2 masses of ≈ 18 – 225 kg. In combination with 3D fluid numerical simulations of slug flow we begin to probe a possible generation mechanism for the observed gas codas. The simulations show that ‘daughter bubbles’ are produced from the base of ascending slugs, which result in gas mass loss rates from the slugs of between ≈ 1.2 – 14.2 kg s−1 . Nf , the dimensionless inverse viscosity number, can be used to characterise the form of a slug wake, and hence when mass loss through daughter bubble production may occur. However, the observed daughter bubble behaviour occurs at lower levels of Nf than predicted by previous mm- to cm-scale studies and suggests that extra physics (e.g. surface tension), beyond that included in Nf , may be needed to parameterise daughter bubble production. We suggest that daughter bubbles could play a role in modulating explosivity of strombolian eruptions as a potential causal mechanism for gas coda production.
What if your supervisor was from Lord of the Rings, here is a look at what these characters would be like as supervisors and academics in real life! Dr. Gollum – Has spent his life investigating one scientific question. Has a blinkered and unwavering view which cannot be influenced by anyone, which can often lead to irrational and heated arguments. Be careful, this supervisor may leave you sweating it out in hot lava. However, you can’t fault Dr. Gollums work ethic, plotting, I mean working, during all non-sleeping hours. Supervisor Rating – 1/10. Professor Gandalf – Extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects, but has a tendency to disappear just before things become difficult. Only reachable by Eagle mail, which is somewhat a hindrance. Favourite saying - "You Shall Not Pass", which isn't great for morale. Biased towards Hobbits, not an equal opportunities employer. Often confused with Professor Dumbledore. Supervisor Rating - 6/10 Dr. Boromir – One does not simply pass a PhD. Be careful, this supervisor may try and steal your shiny hard work and publish it himself, in the end though they will do the right thing, but it is touch and go for a while! Supervisor Rating - 4/10. Professor Aragorn (Strider) – A broody and mysterious academic. Can be trusted to make the right decision and give good opinions and help, regardless of the length it time it takes. Loves fieldwork, especially mountain climbing, so expect to get dragged along on many expeditions. Very worldly wise, excellent at securing large research grants. Supervisor Rating – 9/10. Dr. Arwen – A little indecisive at times, does she want to go to that conference on the distant shores or not? Some of her published work is so good it almost seems like magic, publishes in Nature Geoscience yearly. Also adept in the field. Supervisor Rating 9/10. Professor Galadriel – All knowing and incredibly intelligent, politically aware so she knows who to work with for the best results. Easy to communicate with, so good that she knows what you are thinking sometimes! Has the ability to be in more than one place at the same time, a useful skill for an academic. Can be a little scary sometimes, particularly when plotting a coup for head of department. But will likely thing better of it, so no need to worry. Supervisor Rating 9/10. Drs. Legolas and Gimli – You get this pair two for the price of one. Rarely in the office and difficult to get hold of. Both have their individual specialties, neither interested in responsibility just along for the ride! Legolas has a problem, he thinks he is above the laws of physics - doesn't make for good science. Supervisor Rating 5/10. Postdoctoral Researchers: Frodo and Samwise Gamgee – Frodo doesn’t quite know what he is doing. It's a good thing that these two come as a pair. When Samwise Gamgee isn't in the pub, he is a loyal and hardworking academic who makes a great supervisor. Be prepared to have all meetings in the pub, but don't worry as Samwise will supply the beer, in annoying half pints though. Frodo isn't really sure whether he wants an academic career, liable to stare into the distance pensively during meetings. Supervisor Rating 5/10. Emeritus Professor Bilbo – Respected within the field but with a habit of going missing without warning. A little forgetful and not up with modern technology, but looks very good for his age. Won’t reply to emails, spends most of his time reminiscing, doesn’t really publish anymore or has published so much that he barely notices the new papers! Supervisor Rating 3/10. Professor Saruman – A controversial figure. His office is in the top of the faculty building as he likes to tread on other people. Knows his stuff but makes the wrong decisions, particularly where collaborators are concerned. Supervisor Rating 1/10. Dr. Sauron – You can feel the gaze of this supervisor at all times. Avoid at all costs, unless you are an Ork and even then you are likely to be thrown into the deep end. His research practices are extremely suspect. Yet to gain promotion to Professor as he had a large career break finding himself again. Supervisor Rating 0/10. Disclaimer: The above descriptions are fictional. It is meant an amusing look at academic life and supervisors which should not be taken seriously. Any resemblance to real people is a huge coincidence. |
Archives
August 2022
|