Principles That Don’t Change

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

In Harvey Mansfield’s time there, Old Harvard, a place of tradition with its prejudices, has become New Harvard, a place of prestige with its prejudices:

There are two old jokes about Old Harvard: “You can always tell a Harvard man but you can’t tell him much,” and “You will never regret going to Harvard; others may, but you won’t.” These describe arrogance, and of course the arrogance of Harvard men, not the women who are there now in profusion and force.

With arrogance went a certain fastidiousness mocked in another joke: “A Yale man washes his hands after he goes to the bathroom — a Harvard man washes them before.” No doubt this one came from Yale, as it makes Yale represent normal male humanity in contrast to a studied, self-conscious few.

This Harvard attitude survives today in the act that students call “dropping the H-Bomb” — that is, disclosing that you go to Harvard. Even I never announce that I’m a Harvard professor. I say that I teach. Where? In a college. Yes, but where? Around Boston. Oh, I see: you must be a Harvard professor.

In the Old Harvard, such reticence was assured arrogance trying not to be condescending; now, it’s truly embarrassed and apologetic, humility fighting with pride. The pride comes from consciousness of merit. It’s a reasonable pride. Respect for merit gives confidence that the inequalities resident in our democracy are the source of progress, rather than reaction and superstition. Call it meritocracy if you will, but it is better than any lack-of-meritocracy.

This was the confidence of the Old Harvard, really not so old; it was the former, liberal Harvard that reigned before the late sixties. It reflected an acute case of the contradiction in our democracy: between the demand for ever more equality and the progress that results from the desire to make oneself better than others by competing with them.

Confidence in progress has now been replaced by postulation of change. Progress is achieved and can be welcomed, but change just happens and must be adjusted to. “Adjusting to change” is now the unofficial motto of Harvard, mutabilitas instead of veritas. To adjust, the new Harvard must avoid adherence to any principle that does not change, even liberal principle. Yet in fact it has three principles: diversity, choice, and equality.

The Art of Playing Weirdly

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

Alexandr Dolgopolov exemplifies the lost art of playing tennis weirdly:

As tennis turned into a ball-crushing baseline game, men and women who rely on kooky spins, unique grips or downright strange strokes have been squeezed out. The evolution is logical. The harder players hit the ball, the less time they have to prepare, so technique today is abbreviated and tends toward uniformity. Training methods have become global and kids start to play under professional supervision at younger ages.

“There’s no more place, maybe, for fun,” said Fabrice Santoro, whose two-handed strokes and subtle spins earned him a spot in Grand Slam draws in four different decades. “When you start as a kid now, your coach normally says, ‘OK, if you want to be a champion, it’s going to be very hard, you have to be very serious, you have to work hard every day, so listen to me, be like this.’ They don’t say, ‘Have fun,’ — they don’t say this.”

Dolgopolov, 22, used to be one of those kids. His father, Oleksandr, coached Andrei Medvedev, the former French Open finalist, and started taking his son on the tour when he was not yet four years old.

Dolgopolov picked up his first racket at three and hit with many top pros throughout his childhood, when he wasn’t playing video games in the player lounges.

“I had classic technique — one of the best techniques when I was like 10, 12, but then I changed,” he said. For Dolgopolov, creating his own style was a first step toward independence from his father.
[...]
In practice Wednesday, Dolgopolov showed off his rapid fire serve, which looks like a normal serve set to fast forward: He bounces the ball twice, tosses it, and hits it when it reaches its peak, if not just before. He’s so quick that he can bounce the ball off the ground with his racket and then spring into his service motion and fire a bullet into the box (he demonstrated this). He says he can bounce the ball off the butt of his racket handle and then serve it.

In matches, Dolgopolov is a master of misdirection, especially with his two-handed backhand. “I hit the ball early and move my wrist a lot, so I get bigger angles,” he said.

Tennis was never dominated by funky players, but the sport used to have many more of them. Pancho Segura hit a two-handed forehand that Jack Kramer dubbed the greatest shot in tennis. Alberto Berasategui’s underhand forehand grip was so extreme that he would simply turn over his wrist and hit his backhand with the same grip (and with the same side of the racket). In 1967, Francoise Durr used an arsenal of self-taught strokes, including a sweeping backhand hit with a forehand grip, to win the French Open. John McEnroe’s serve and forehand were as unusual and inimitable as they were beautiful.

Dazzle Camouflage Affects Speed Perception

Monday, June 6th, 2011

I’ve mentioned dazzle camouflage before — in which impossible-to-hide ships aren’t painted to blend into the ever-changing background but to stand out jarringly and unnaturally — and now a PLoS ONE paper shows that such patterns do in fact affect speed perception as intended:

The experimental textures used were chosen to represent the typical range of components used in previously used dazzle camouflage: stripes, zigzags and checks. When moving quickly, two of the high contrast patterns tested caused a significant reduction in perceived speed of around 7%. These patterns – zigzags and checks – were two-dimensional, in contrast to the other, one-dimensional, patterns tested. Patterns which were less visible (low contrast) or slow moving had no effect on perceived speed; the former finding indicates that the effect is not simply due to texture per se, and implies that straightforward background-matching camouflage (which is generally lower contrast) would not produce a speed distortion: high contrast texture, as used for dazzle camouflage, is necessary.

The fast condition used (20 deg/s) translates into about 13 km/h (8 mph) at a distance of 10 m, and scales linearly upwards. So at the sort of ranges typical of naval warfare, we have no evidence that dazzle camouflage disguised the speed of ships in the two World Wars. Its efficacy in distorting other properties, such as size, shape, range and heading remains untested but, as outlined above, there are good reasons to suppose that these distortions occurred. A straightforward contrast effect on perceived speed [15] does not account for the data reported here: only two-dimensional patterns resulted in distorted speed perception, and only at high contrasts.

Thus dazzle patterns can distort perceived speed, if that speed is sufficiently high. As such, dazzle camouflage should be effective in situations where visual contact is still important: in nature and in low-tech battlefields. In the former case, dazzle may be one reason for high-contrast two-dimensional coloration (e.g. zebras). In the latter case, note that our experimental targets correspond approximately to a Land Rover at 70 m moving at 90 km/h. This is a typical distance between a rocket propelled grenade launcher and its target [22]. So if the target speed were sufficiently high, dazzle patterning should offer some protection from such devices. The effect size observed for check and zigzag patterns at this speed is an error of c.7% (fig.3d). An approximate calculation, based on the best available knowledge of the flight characteristics of a typical weapon, shows that the grenade takes around 0.5 s to reach a target at 70 m [22]; in 0.5 s a 90 kmh vehicle moves 12.5 m, and so a 7% error is about 90 cm. In other words, the missile would hit around 1 m behind where it was aimed, a difference which may be sufficient to prevent loss of life. Furthermore, the inherent variability of the effect with pattern, speed and contrast implies that using different patterns across vehicles will result in unpredictability: a good way to avoid easy compensation for the effect of the camouflage.

(Hat tip to Nyrath.)

A Track Team That Also Plays Soccer

Monday, June 6th, 2011

FC Barcelona is known for its tiki-taka style of constant touches between short passes. That style allows them to control the ball for 70 percent of the game and to make the opposing team run themselves ragged — but their defensive strategy of applying constant pressure means they also run themselves pretty ragged:

According to Stats Inc., which tracks the distance each player travels in a match, Barcelona’s players have covered 627,366 meters of turf during their six Champions League knockout-round matches, or about 390 miles. Its opponents, meanwhile, have run 611,120 meters or 380 miles, about 3% less, which is significant considering they are all chasing the same ball.

How Europe Lost Faith in Its Own Civilization

Monday, June 6th, 2011

How did Europe lose confidence in its own civilization?, Frits Bolkestein asks:

In their modern forms, the noble Western traditions of self-assessment and self-criticism have often degraded into sentimental self-flagellation. Consider Africa, whose underdevelopment many people blame on the West. This guilt over Africa’s poverty is a sentiment that underlies Western development aid. But the question to ask is not, “Why are poor countries poor?” The right question is, “Why are wealthy countries wealthy?” In the beginning we were all poor.

Whoever wants to study the rise of the West and the roots of our prosperity should go back to the Renaissance, if not to classical antiquity. Colonizing Africa had nothing to do with it; the interior of most of Africa was inaccessible until late in the 19th century. European colonizers also came late to North Africa and the Middle East, which for many centuries was ruled by the Ottomans. Europe is no more responsible for the underdevelopment of Africa than Rome was for the underdevelopment of Gaul.

Whether we like it or not, he says, our civilization remains deeply marked by Christianity:

Consider the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which states that “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (23:12). Friedrich Nietzsche characterized this as “slave morality.” But one does not have to go that far to realize that this saying, along with instructions to “turn the other cheek” and “go the extra mile,” do not exactly prod people to stick up for their own.

If Islamic civilization may be described as a shame culture, Christianity is a guilt culture. Listen to Bach’s “Passion According to Saint Matthew.” The chorus—that is to say the people—sings, “I shall be punished for what you [Christ] have suffered,” and, “You are no sinner, like we and our children.” Pride joined guilt and we in Europe soon came to believe that the mote in our eye was heavier than the beam abroad.

This would not be a problem if the burden of a bad conscience came with atonement, forgiveness, confession, expiation or any of the other theological or liturgical forms for purging guilt from the sinner. Formerly, Catholicism and Lutheranism provided for the atonement of guilt. But these traditions no longer have credibility in Europe. Feelings of guilt are not sublimated. This also goes for Calvinism, which in its purest form knows no remission of guilt in this life. Its effects have been deep in Europe and outlast the doctrine.

Riverside’s Hillcrest High

Monday, June 6th, 2011

I don’t know why Riverside, California thought it would be a good idea to spend $105 million building a high-tech high school, but now they’ve decided that they don’t have the money to run it:

Shuttering the school for a year is expected to save the district $3 million next year, not counting the $1 million it will spend to secure and maintain the empty campus.

Wait, $1 million to secure and maintain the empty campus?

Ariel’s Undersea Adventure

Sunday, June 5th, 2011

Now, 18 years after The Little Mermaid came out, Disney has finally opened Ariel’s Undersea Adventure — not at Walt Disney World, and not at Disneyland, but across the street from Disneyland, at Disney’s California Adventure.

Two of the lead Imagineers previously worked on pieces for the DisneySea theme park in Tokyo.

David Mamet’s Coming Out Party

Sunday, June 5th, 2011

A few years ago, the Village Voice published David Mamet’s essay, Political Civility, under the more honest and lively title, Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal. (I mentioned it at the time.)

Now Bari Weiss of the Wall Street Journal is happy to announce Mamet’s conservative coming out party:

Now Mr. Mamet has written a book-length, raucous coming-out party: “The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture.” (If only the Voice editors had been around to supply a snappier title.)

Hear him take on the left’s sacred cows. Diversity is a “commodity.” College is nothing more than “Socialist Camp.” Liberalism is like roulette addiction. Toyota’s Prius, he tells me, is an “anti-chick magnet” and “ugly as a dogcatcher’s butt.” Hollywood liberals—his former crowd—once embraced Communism “because they hadn’t invented Pilates yet.” Oh, and good radio isn’t NPR (“National Palestinian Radio”) but Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.

The book is blunt, at times funny, and often over the top.

Andrew Klavan sympathizes:

Breaking free of leftism while working in show business is like escaping from “The Matrix” only to find oneself in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” You wake to a risky but bracing new reality of individual liberty, limited government and free markets and are instantly beset by zombified statist dreamers determined either to make you rejoin their ranks or to destroy you. Mr. Mamet reports that a certain prominent left-leaning newspaper actually panned his first openly conservative play not once but twice for good measure. (Libertarian humorist Greg Gutfeld has introduced a “Mamet Attack Clock” on his late-night cable show to measure just how fast critics will now downgrade their opinions of the playwright’s work.)

Under such circumstances, it is natural that Mr. Mamet would develop the urge to cry out, like Kevin McCarthy in the famous last scene of “Body Snatchers”: “Listen to me! Please listen!” From that urge, no doubt, arises Mr. Mamet’s new work of nonfiction, “The Secret Knowledge.” It is his attempt to explain and disseminate the thinking behind his conversion to the right.

“Liberalism is a religion,” he writes. “It affords a feeling of spiritual rectitude at little or no cost. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed. Well and good, but this does not accord with the experience of anyone.”

Kim Jong-il portrait used as South Korean army target

Saturday, June 4th, 2011

The South Korean government has just asked its military to stop using Kim Jong-il’s portrait for target practice:

I hear we have some left-over Osama targets we could send them.

Sink the Bismarck!

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

Speaking of battleships and torpedoes, the Bismarck went down 70 years ago (yesterday):

It was Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from 820 Squadron which crippled the Bismarck in a daring attack that signalled the rise of maritime air power.

Two thousand German sailors were killed in the sinking, which came just two days after the Bismarck had destroyed the British battle cruiser HMS Hood, with the loss of 1, 418 crew members.

The loss of the Hood prompted Britain’s wartime leader Winston Churchill to issue his famous order to “sink the Bismarck”.

And it was the single 1,600lb torpedo dropped from John’s biplane Swordfish — nicknamed the Flying Stringbag by pilots — which had dived out of a cloud-filled sky and through a hail of enemy fire that damaged the Bismark’s rudder.

That single devastating blow crippled the 56,000-ton battleship and allowed Britain’s Home Fleet to close in and fulfil Churchill’s orders.

The Bismarck’s captain, Ernst Lindemann, had managed to give the Royal Navy’s chasing pack of vessels, which included the battleships King George V and Rodney as well as the heavy cruiser Dorsetshire, the slip.

With thick cloud making for poor visibility, John and his comrades from the aircraft carrier Ark Royal had been dispatched to find the Bismarck.

The German ship was spotted by chance by a Catalan flying boat and John, aged just 21, and two other aircraft from 820 Squadron then shadowed the monster of the North Atlantic for several hours before being ordered to attack as the Bismarck made a desperate run for the safety of the French coast.

John’s crew led the attack: “We dropped our single torpedo from about 1,500 yards and then got the hell out of there as fast as we could,” he recalled. “I never saw the hit, but the next crew did. The Bismarck had turned and gave us a big target and I got it right up the backside. She was more or less crippled and had lost her ability to steer.”

That allowed Royal Navy ships to move in. Shells and torpedoes from the British warships pounded the Bismark. Returning to the burning ship, which was still afloat despite heavy shelling from Royal Navy warships, John’s squadron had orders to launch further strikes. But just as they arrived, the Bismarck rolled over after, it is believed, Captain Lindemann ordered her to be scuttled, throwing hundreds of men into the water. Flying overhead at just 50ft, it was a sight John will never forget.

“It was a dreadful sight — seeing all those men in the water with no chance of being saved,” John explained. “But in the days between the Bismarck leaving port and being sunk, she’d taken the lives of 5,000 sailors so it had to be done.”

Out of a crew of 2,200, just 115 sailors from the Bismarck survived. “Churchill wasn’t kidding when he ordered the Bismarck sunk. The ship was a menace to all allied shipping.”

Naval Technology in World War I

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

Naval technology in World War I was dominated by the battleship:

Battleships were built along the dreadnought model, with several large turrets of equally sized big guns. In general terms, British ships had larger guns and were equipped and manned for quicker fire than their German counterparts. In contrast, the German ships had better optical equipment and rangefinding, and were much better compartmentalized and able to deal with damage. The Germans also generally had better propellant handling procedures, a point that was to have disastrous consequences for the British battlecruisers at Jutland.

Many of the individual parts of ships had recently improved dramatically. The introduction of the turbine led to much higher performance, as well as taking up less room and thereby allowing for improved layout. Whereas pre-dreadnought battleships were generally limited to about 12–17 kn (14–20 mph; 22–31 km/h), modern ships were capable of at least 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h), and in the latest British classes, 24 kn (28 mph; 44 km/h). The introduction of the gyroscope and centralized fire control, the “director” in British terms, led to dramatic improvements in gunnery. Ships built before 1900 had effective ranges of perhaps 2,000 yd (1,800 m), whereas the first “new” ships were good to at least 8,000 yd (7,300 m), and modern designs to over 10,000 yd (9,100 m).

One class of ship that appeared just before the war was the battlecruiser. There were two schools of thought on battlecruiser design. The first, the British design, were armed like their heavier dreadnought cousins, but deliberately lacked armor to save weight in order to improve speed. The concept was that these ships would be able to outgun anything smaller than themselves, and run away from anything larger. The German designs opted to trade slightly smaller main armament (11 or 12 inch guns compared to 13.5 or 15 inch guns in their British rivals) for speed, while keeping relatively heavy armor. They could operate independently in the open ocean where their speed gave them room to maneuver, or alternately as a fast scouting force in front of a larger fleet action.

The torpedo boat caused considerable worry for many naval planners. In theory a large number of these inexpensive ships could attack in masses and overwhelm a dreadnought force. This led to the introduction of ships dedicated to keeping them away from the fleets, the torpedo boat destroyers, or simply destroyers. Although the mass raid continued to be a possibility, another solution was found in the form of the submarine, increasingly in use. The submarine could approach underwater, safe from the guns of both the capital ships and the destroyers (although not for long), and fire a salvo as deadly as a torpedo boat’s. Limited range and speed, especially underwater, made these weapons difficult to use tactically. Submarines were generally more effective in attacking poorly defended merchant ships than in fighting surface warships, though several small to medium British warships were lost to torpedoes launched from German U-boats.

Oil was just being introduced to replace coal, containing as much as 40% more energy per volume, extending range and further improving internal layout. Another advantage was that oil gave off considerably less smoke, making visual detection more difficult. This was generally mitigated by the small number of ships so equipped, generally operating in concert with coal-fired ships.

Radio was in early use, with naval ships commonly equipped with radio telegraph, merchant ships less so. Sonar was in its infancy by the end of the war.

Aviation was primarily focused on reconnaissance, with the aircraft carrier being developed over the course of the war, and bomber aircraft capable of lifting only relatively light loads.

Naval mines were also increasingly well developed. Defensive mines along coasts made it much more difficult for capital ships to get close enough to conduct coastal bombardment or support attacks. The first battleship sinking in the war — that of HMS Audacious — was the result of her striking a naval mine on 27 October 1914. Suitably placed mines also served to restrict the freedom of movement of submarines.

The North Sea was the main theater of the war for surface action — or inaction, really:

The British Grand Fleet took position against the German High Seas Fleet. Britain’s larger fleet could maintain a blockade of Germany, cutting it off from overseas trade and resources. Germany’s fleet remained mostly in harbor behind their screen of mines, occasionally attempting to lure the British fleet into battle (one of such attempts was the bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft) in the hopes of weakening them enough to break the blockade or allow the High Seas Fleet to attack British shipping and trade. Britain strove to maintain the blockade and, if possible, to damage the German fleet enough to remove the threat to the islands and free the Grand Fleet for use elsewhere.

Major battles included those at Heligoland Bight (two of them), Dogger Bank, and Jutland. In general, Britain, though not always tactically successful, was able to maintain the blockade and keep the High Seas Fleet in port, although the High Seas Fleet remained a threat that kept the vast majority of Britain’s capital ships in the North Sea.

The set-piece battles and maneuvering have drawn historians’ attention but it was the blockade of German commerce through the North Sea, which ultimately starved the German people and industries and contributed to Germany seeking the Armistice of 1918.

Smelly chemicals confuse mosquitoes

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

Female mosquitoes follow a trail of carbon dioxide to their human prey, so researchers are exploring smelly chemicals to confuse them:

Scientists at the University of California, Riverside, tested smelly chemicals on three species of mosquito: Anopheles gambiae, which spreads malaria; Culex quinquefasciatus, which spreads filariasis and West Nile virus; and Aedes aegypti which spreads dengue and yellow fever.

The researchers say that these insects combined infect half a billion people each year, some in at risk countries will be infected multiple times in their lifetime, and cause millions of deaths.

The researchers identified three groups of chemicals, which disrupt a mosquito’s carbon dioxide receptors.

One mimicked carbon dioxide and could be used as bait in insect traps, another prevented the mosquito from detecting carbon dioxide and the last group tricked the mosquito’s brain into thinking it was surrounded by huge quantities of the gas — so it could not pick which way to go.

Silk Road

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Libertarian tech-geeks have been discussing digital currency for decades. Now Bitcoin is making a name for itself — as a way to buy illicit drugs over the Internet, of course:

Silk Road, a digital black market that sits just below most internet users’ purview, does resemble something from a cyberpunk novel. Through a combination of anonymity technology and a sophisticated user-feedback system, Silk Road makes buying and selling illegal drugs as easy as buying used electronics — and seemingly as safe. It’s Amazon — if Amazon sold mind-altering chemicals.

Here is just a small selection of the 340 items available for purchase on Silk Road by anyone, right now: a gram of Afghani hash; 1/8th ounce of “sour 13″ weed; 14 grams of ecstasy; .1 grams tar heroin. A listing for “Avatar” LSD includes a picture of blotter paper with big blue faces from the James Cameron movie on it. The sellers are located all over the world, a large portion from the U.S. and Canada.

But even Silk Road has limits: You won’t find any weapons-grade plutonium, for example. Its terms of service ban the sale of “anything who’s purpose is to harm or defraud, such as stolen credit cards, assassinations, and weapons of mass destruction.”

Getting to Silk Road is tricky. The URL seems made to be forgotten. But don’t point your browser there yet. It’s only accessible through the anonymizing network TOR, which requires a bit of technical skill to configure.

None of us should be the least bit surprised if Bitcoin is already being used to buy and sell stolen credit card numbers.

Battleships

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Scott Locklin calls battleships a ridiculous but awesome idea, another gleaming phalanx hopelessly outmaneuvered by horse archers — in the form of torpedo boats.

If, because of the physics of scale, a larger ship is faster, better armed, and better armored than n smaller ships of the same tonnage though, how is a battleship ridiculous or poorly suited for maneuver warfare?

And if one destroyer can take out multiple torpedo boats, does that make torpedo boats ridiculous and poorly suited for maneuver warfare? And if a cruiser can take out multiple destroyers…

This seems like a case of paper-rock-scissors, not simple superiority and inferiority.

I see a few grains of truth in what Locklin says though. Building the original Dreadnought seems perfectly reasonable. It’s the responselet’s build our own big-gun battleships! — that resembles a primitive male mating display — let’s grow our own big-antler rack! A predator doesn’t catch and kill prey by growing a bigger antler-rack. (I vaguely recall Donald Kagan making that point in his On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace.) So the Germans should have put their naval resources into torpedo boats and subs — and, later, torpedo-bombers.

The other issue is that battleships may have made sense in 1906, but by WWII the literal and figurative ascent of air power was hard to ignore — at least in retrospect.

(Hat tip to Nyrath.)

Sujoy Guha

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Maverick Indian scientist Sujoy Guha sounds like an interesting chap:

Guha was a member of IIT’s fifth entering class, in 1957 — attending school where his uncle, a radical writer, had been imprisoned years earlier. After Guha reached retirement age in 2002, he returned to Kharagpur from Delhi. Driving around campus today in his 1967 Fiat sedan, Guha points out buildings that he has reclaimed from the jungle and retrofit with labs and workshops — a kind of rogue operation within the university walls. A former mining department building now serves as a RISUG production facility, where his staff mixes up batches of the polymer used in the procedure.

Besides RISUG, Guha is also developing an artificial heart based not on a human heart but on that of a cockroach, which has 13 chambers. His artificial version has five chambers in its left ventricle, which allows it to step up pressure more gradually, inflicting less stress on the mechanism and materials than a conventional design. In another building on campus, he is raising goats that will eventually receive the experimental hearts.

A birdlike man with clear, olive-toned skin and an elegant manner, Guha seems to have been transported from another century. In a sense, he was: Born in 1940, before independence, he still uses Britishisms like see here and good man. He doesn’t waste oxygen on small talk, so when he does speak you know to listen. Nevertheless, he has a lively sense of humor, and when something amuses him he’ll burst into a delighted, high-pitched laugh. At age 70, he still does not need glasses, which he attributes to his daily eye exercises. Every night, he jogs 2 miles around the IIT campus carrying a rolled-up belt to ward off stray dogs. “Every part of the body must be exercised,” he says.

Guha has a penchant for simple yet profound inventions. As a young graduate student at St. Louis University during the mid-1960s, he devised an electromagnetic pump that had no moving parts; instead, it used the ionic charge of seawater to create force. As he explained to a visiting reporter from Popular Science, his pump could also serve as a silent engine for ships — or nuclear submarines. A version of that electromagnetic “caterpillar drive” is, of course, at the center of the film The Hunt for Red October. As has happened with medical discoveries from penicillin to Viagra, Guha was searching for something entirely different when he stumbled across the idea that became RISUG. In the early 1970s, at the behest of the government, Guha was looking for a way to purify water in rural pumps. Treating the water chemically could be too expensive and infrastructure-dependent; he needed a method that was permanent, safe, and cheap. Then a hotshot young professor at the IIT campus in Delhi, Guha figured out a way to line the pumps with a substance that would kill bacteria without depleting itself.

But the project was never completed. In the mid-1970s, India awoke to its urgent population crisis, and the government’s priorities changed. Guha refocused his work on the field of contraception. He soon realized that the same basic concept could work inside the pumping mechanism of the male anatomy — the vas deferens.

His RISUG technology has evolved into a revolutionary new birth control method for men. (You may not appreciate the accompanying video.)