I had to read this twice to understand it. Stated succinctly, it sounds like the company's sensor measured the rate of flow of oxygen through the sensor, which would give a reduced reading if the cross section is obstructed.
Feynman's sensor, by contrast, directly measured the concentration of oxygen in the sensor, which gives the same result every time once the sensor is at equilibrium with the environment.
People are giving such bizarre examples for why it helped.
Just think of a thermometer.
If it removes heat as it measures it (consumes oxygen) then it will measure everything too cold if the system can't replace the heat that's removed (this is like having an insulated thermometer).
If your thermometer replaces heat as it removes it it solves this issue.
When is this an issue for a thermometer? If your thermometer is too large in terms of heat capacity for the objects you're measuring the temperature of.
Off-topic, but I was interested to read Carl's Twitter bio[0], "I’ve spent a lifetime switching my Special Interest every year or two. By now I’m surprisingly knowledgeable in a lot of fields— a skill now obsoleted by AI."
I feel like the company might have been Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI, now a division of Xylem).
The dissolved oxygen sensor (the Clark electrode) was invented by Dr. Lee Clark at Antioch University (Yellow Springs, OH) and commercialized by YSI in the 1960s. A friend of mine worked at YSI from the late 60s thru the 80s on biosensors (glucose and lactic acid, using the Clark electrode as the basis) and worked directly with Dr. Clark.
Carl Feynman was born in 1962, according to what I'm reading, so if he was 14 that would have put this story in the time period early in the commercialization of these sensors.
The way people continue to use X is a perfect example of Arendt's banality of evil: that moral wrongs can be enabled by ordinary people, acting through conformity, careerism, convenience, and thoughtlessness.
They don't have any deep ideological commitment or overt cruelty, they just don't care enough. They justify themselves with claims such as "it's the way things are," "not my role," "everyone does it", or that it doesn't really make a difference.
But if everyone on X that doesn't explicitly support fascism and Nazism stopped using it, it would make an immediate difference. X would turn into something more like Truth Social.
To use an analogy with some metaphors: The sensor is like a sealed room with a screen window that only lets in oxygen. To get a reading, every molecule that enters is smashed to create a tiny spark of electricity. However, because the oxygen is destroyed to create that spark, it creates a suction effect, causing more oxygen to rush into the room to fill the void. This creates a major flaw: if gunk builds up on the screen, it slows down the flow of incoming oxygen. The sensor, which only counts sparks per second, is tricked into thinking the oxygen level outside is low, when really the window is just dirty.
By adding a third electrode to replace the oxygen every time one is smashed, you maintain a perfect balance and eliminate that suction. Because the room stays full, the sensor no longer relies on the speed of the oxygen rushing in; it simply measures the steady state of the oxygen already there. Even if gunk gets on the window, the sensor won't be starved of a reading. It might take a few extra seconds for the levels to settle, but the final number will be 100% accurate because the sensor is no longer emptying its own room to get a count.
I still don't get it. The outside is dirty, right? He said in his post "You dip this probe into beer, sewage, or canned food a-stewing". So when you say "when really the window is just dirty" I don't get it - yes it will always be, because that's what it is placed in, no?
I think this was primarily about speeding up the measurement time.
With just two electrodes you had to wait for the device to achieve equilibrium with the material being measured. If the concentration of oxygen on the probe side of the barrier was higher or lower than the material side you would get false measurements, particularly in low oxygen scenarios because you have oxygem trapped in the probe.
By keeping the state of oxygen inside the probe constant and replacing consumed molecules you now can measure almost instantly.
Because then it doesn't alter the side of the membrane where it does the reading (plus one minus one equals zero). That makes the measurement more accurate.
The current is measuring the rate of the reaction. With the two-terminal design the rate of the reaction is proportional to the rate of diffusion of the oxygen into the area where the reaction is taking place, which is related to the oxygen concentration around it but also can be affect by other things. With the third electrode, the current is proportional to the concentration of oxygen in the area around the sensor directly, which will equalise with its surroundings much more consistently than the rate of diffusion.
This way you're measuring change in oxygen concentration. As more oxygen comes into the compartment in order to equalize with the outside you consume and at the same time produce more oxygen. You measure the change in rate of oxygen consumption/production. It is always consuming/producing oxygen but the rate changes with the concentration.
Before, you measured diffusion rate of oxygen and inferred oxygen concentration from that (the concentration outside the chamber is always greater than the concentration inside). Dirty membranes etc all changed the rate of diffusion, which caused issues.
After you measure oxygen concentration directly (the concentration inside and outside the chamber are always the same).
So do you have to be a god tier Nobel Laureates to get this kind of gig where you just learn about a business and then offer random suggestions that might or might not help them and charge obscene fees for the privilege?
You definitely don't have to be god tier anything, you just need to know at least a little more than the companies you are consulting for.
This kind of work has been my primary income for the last 4 years or so. Nowhere near on the same level as Feynman, but I know enough about enough other things that I get a lot of reputational referrals.
>you just need to know at least a little more than the companies you are consulting for.
sometimes (i'd argue often, actually), you don't even need that. simply having an outside/fresh perspective and the fact that you aren't part of any of the existing groups/silos is valuable.
I imagine you can also start by doing the same thing for a low cost, or for free. Find a local business that’s interested, give your advice, build reputation, repeat.
If you want to read the replies without an account:
https://xcancel.com/carl_feynman/status/2016979540099420428
https://nitter.net/carl_feynman/status/2016979540099420428
I had to read this twice to understand it. Stated succinctly, it sounds like the company's sensor measured the rate of flow of oxygen through the sensor, which would give a reduced reading if the cross section is obstructed.
Feynman's sensor, by contrast, directly measured the concentration of oxygen in the sensor, which gives the same result every time once the sensor is at equilibrium with the environment.
People are giving such bizarre examples for why it helped.
Just think of a thermometer.
If it removes heat as it measures it (consumes oxygen) then it will measure everything too cold if the system can't replace the heat that's removed (this is like having an insulated thermometer).
If your thermometer replaces heat as it removes it it solves this issue.
When is this an issue for a thermometer? If your thermometer is too large in terms of heat capacity for the objects you're measuring the temperature of.
Off-topic, but I was interested to read Carl's Twitter bio[0], "I’ve spent a lifetime switching my Special Interest every year or two. By now I’m surprisingly knowledgeable in a lot of fields— a skill now obsoleted by AI."
That hits a bit close to home!
[0] https://x.com/carl_feynman/
I feel like the company might have been Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI, now a division of Xylem).
The dissolved oxygen sensor (the Clark electrode) was invented by Dr. Lee Clark at Antioch University (Yellow Springs, OH) and commercialized by YSI in the 1960s. A friend of mine worked at YSI from the late 60s thru the 80s on biosensors (glucose and lactic acid, using the Clark electrode as the basis) and worked directly with Dr. Clark.
Carl Feynman was born in 1962, according to what I'm reading, so if he was 14 that would have put this story in the time period early in the commercialization of these sensors.
Some good background:
https://derangedphysiology.com/main/cicm-primary-exam/respir...
https://www.anaestheasier.com/the-clark-electrode/
I'll have to hit my friend up to see if he knows anything about this. I'm certain he'd get a kick out of reading this, if nothing else.
Saw this twitter response,
> Do you have a similar speaking cadence as your dad? I can almost hear this in his voice.
I experience the same. Wonder if Carl asked chatGPT to write it in Richard Feynman style? :/
I troll; Regardless, it made me happy to hear Richard in Carl.
[flagged]
It is a neat story about Richard Feynman. What about it reads as "Nazi" to you?
The complaint is about it being a post on X.
Some people around here really do think that way about Elon Musk.
1 reply →
I don't recall this "richard feynman" guy ever publicly supporting trans rights
The way people continue to use X is a perfect example of Arendt's banality of evil: that moral wrongs can be enabled by ordinary people, acting through conformity, careerism, convenience, and thoughtlessness.
They don't have any deep ideological commitment or overt cruelty, they just don't care enough. They justify themselves with claims such as "it's the way things are," "not my role," "everyone does it", or that it doesn't really make a difference.
But if everyone on X that doesn't explicitly support fascism and Nazism stopped using it, it would make an immediate difference. X would turn into something more like Truth Social.
[dead]
[flagged]
This would be cool if only it made sense.
To use an analogy with some metaphors: The sensor is like a sealed room with a screen window that only lets in oxygen. To get a reading, every molecule that enters is smashed to create a tiny spark of electricity. However, because the oxygen is destroyed to create that spark, it creates a suction effect, causing more oxygen to rush into the room to fill the void. This creates a major flaw: if gunk builds up on the screen, it slows down the flow of incoming oxygen. The sensor, which only counts sparks per second, is tricked into thinking the oxygen level outside is low, when really the window is just dirty.
By adding a third electrode to replace the oxygen every time one is smashed, you maintain a perfect balance and eliminate that suction. Because the room stays full, the sensor no longer relies on the speed of the oxygen rushing in; it simply measures the steady state of the oxygen already there. Even if gunk gets on the window, the sensor won't be starved of a reading. It might take a few extra seconds for the levels to settle, but the final number will be 100% accurate because the sensor is no longer emptying its own room to get a count.
I still don't get it. The outside is dirty, right? He said in his post "You dip this probe into beer, sewage, or canned food a-stewing". So when you say "when really the window is just dirty" I don't get it - yes it will always be, because that's what it is placed in, no?
5 replies →
This is a much better explanation. Thank you
I agree. It's not clear how adding a sensor "so that it adds back an oxygen molecule" works. shrug
I think this was primarily about speeding up the measurement time. With just two electrodes you had to wait for the device to achieve equilibrium with the material being measured. If the concentration of oxygen on the probe side of the barrier was higher or lower than the material side you would get false measurements, particularly in low oxygen scenarios because you have oxygem trapped in the probe.
By keeping the state of oxygen inside the probe constant and replacing consumed molecules you now can measure almost instantly.
2 replies →
Because then it doesn't alter the side of the membrane where it does the reading (plus one minus one equals zero). That makes the measurement more accurate.
10 replies →
The current is measuring the rate of the reaction. With the two-terminal design the rate of the reaction is proportional to the rate of diffusion of the oxygen into the area where the reaction is taking place, which is related to the oxygen concentration around it but also can be affect by other things. With the third electrode, the current is proportional to the concentration of oxygen in the area around the sensor directly, which will equalise with its surroundings much more consistently than the rate of diffusion.
(A quick google brings up this document which describes the principle. No idea if this is the company in the story: https://semeatech.com/uploads/Tech_Docs/AN%20161205.pdf )
This way you're measuring change in oxygen concentration. As more oxygen comes into the compartment in order to equalize with the outside you consume and at the same time produce more oxygen. You measure the change in rate of oxygen consumption/production. It is always consuming/producing oxygen but the rate changes with the concentration.
At least that's what I assume.
I think of it differently.
Before, you measured diffusion rate of oxygen and inferred oxygen concentration from that (the concentration outside the chamber is always greater than the concentration inside). Dirty membranes etc all changed the rate of diffusion, which caused issues.
After you measure oxygen concentration directly (the concentration inside and outside the chamber are always the same).
Trust me, if we all understood Richard Feynman the first time he said something, the world would be a very different place.
That's very cool and edgy but (Richard) Feynman didn't say this.
Had to read it 3 times but it makes sense
So do you have to be a god tier Nobel Laureates to get this kind of gig where you just learn about a business and then offer random suggestions that might or might not help them and charge obscene fees for the privilege?
You definitely don't have to be god tier anything, you just need to know at least a little more than the companies you are consulting for.
This kind of work has been my primary income for the last 4 years or so. Nowhere near on the same level as Feynman, but I know enough about enough other things that I get a lot of reputational referrals.
>you just need to know at least a little more than the companies you are consulting for.
sometimes (i'd argue often, actually), you don't even need that. simply having an outside/fresh perspective and the fact that you aren't part of any of the existing groups/silos is valuable.
2 replies →
I imagine you can also start by doing the same thing for a low cost, or for free. Find a local business that’s interested, give your advice, build reputation, repeat.
I think the story sounds fake because they listened to him.
Having the ideas is easy. Persuading and organization to change is not.
Perhaps it’s a cultural difference between the middle of the 20th century and now.
Often the highly paid consultants are there entirely to get the organisation to listen to the right ideas that already exist within the company.
1 reply →
Why would a small company CEO hire a famous consultant only to ignore his suggestions? Absolutely not evidence of it being fake.
Not really. Just need to be really good at your shit and cut through pointy-haired BS.
Nope! There are consulting companies all over the place filled with bids and not filled with Nobel laureates!
Ergo...
None that offer that level of work life balance though…