HippocratesGarden
Active member
Now that I'm getting control of my schedule again, one of the things I like to do, and have been wanting to get back to, is diy "citizen science".
Those who may know me know I have two pretty good microscopes, an Omax with a camera I got when going through the Soil Food Web course, and another LW Scientific with a camera and epifluorescence I got when I started Matt Power's course(s). I also have a collection of other gadgets, meters, and such.
But some of this citizen science is closer to simple high school science fair type stuff. I have one set of Winogratsky columns going, basically comparing raw pond mud, to that same mud with: an egg white, an egg yolk, a whole egg, and pure sulfur. Many of the YT videos on them have people saying they add the egg for "sulfur", but some use one part, others another, when even a quick Google search shows which part of the egg has more sulfur, so why not be consistent, and then compare that to actual sulfur? If that is the important ingredient, it should have the most obvious effect, and whichever egg component or entire egg is the closest match would be the "correct" thing to add. (Early results, I see little difference thus far between the raw mud and sulfur added, while the egg additions have more change, some more than others).
Another experiment I've been wanting to do is this concept, often repeated, that cutting back above-ground vegetative plant matter results in root shedding to equal the above-ground mass. Thus far, I've found no papers that actually test this and give results.
Has anyone else heard this, and what is the source? Just something mentioned or written in an article or book, but without attribution, or has anyone found an actual attribution? Also, if it is true, which plants tend to exhibit this more than others?
My first concept is simply starting 3-4 different kinds of plants, and an even number of each, in some kind of clear container, such that the roots are visible. Once they seem to be quite visible, if not almost root-bound, then cut back some amount of the above-ground mass, and observe the roots over time, perhaps with a time-lapse camera, and see?
Science is a process, not dogma. It's a verb, not a noun, and can be done by any person, for any reason, who can understand the basic concepts of iteration, control, and variables, or even more simply.. If I do this, or that, which one works better?
Often done for profit, I feel one of the best reasons for "doing science" (see, it's a verb).. is simple curiosity.
Those who may know me know I have two pretty good microscopes, an Omax with a camera I got when going through the Soil Food Web course, and another LW Scientific with a camera and epifluorescence I got when I started Matt Power's course(s). I also have a collection of other gadgets, meters, and such.
But some of this citizen science is closer to simple high school science fair type stuff. I have one set of Winogratsky columns going, basically comparing raw pond mud, to that same mud with: an egg white, an egg yolk, a whole egg, and pure sulfur. Many of the YT videos on them have people saying they add the egg for "sulfur", but some use one part, others another, when even a quick Google search shows which part of the egg has more sulfur, so why not be consistent, and then compare that to actual sulfur? If that is the important ingredient, it should have the most obvious effect, and whichever egg component or entire egg is the closest match would be the "correct" thing to add. (Early results, I see little difference thus far between the raw mud and sulfur added, while the egg additions have more change, some more than others).
Another experiment I've been wanting to do is this concept, often repeated, that cutting back above-ground vegetative plant matter results in root shedding to equal the above-ground mass. Thus far, I've found no papers that actually test this and give results.
Has anyone else heard this, and what is the source? Just something mentioned or written in an article or book, but without attribution, or has anyone found an actual attribution? Also, if it is true, which plants tend to exhibit this more than others?
My first concept is simply starting 3-4 different kinds of plants, and an even number of each, in some kind of clear container, such that the roots are visible. Once they seem to be quite visible, if not almost root-bound, then cut back some amount of the above-ground mass, and observe the roots over time, perhaps with a time-lapse camera, and see?
Science is a process, not dogma. It's a verb, not a noun, and can be done by any person, for any reason, who can understand the basic concepts of iteration, control, and variables, or even more simply.. If I do this, or that, which one works better?
Often done for profit, I feel one of the best reasons for "doing science" (see, it's a verb).. is simple curiosity.
