Home > Uncategorized > FORENSICS 143: BUBBLES

FORENSICS 143: BUBBLES

July 19th, 2011

Between tides, the water covering a reef was relatively still as a small pistol shrimp crept toward an even smaller shrimp. The pistol shrimp’s two claws had no pincers, but the larger of the two had a “pistol-like” device comprising two portions. A movable part was cocked like a hammer and then released to snap against a stationary part. The fast moving hammer caused a “tear” within a small volume of the surrounding water, causing the water to vaporize into a gas and create a tiny bubble, or cavity, in the water. The pressure of the surrounding water, then being much higher than that of the gas within the cavity, caused an immediate implosion of the cavity. The gas dissipated violently into the surrounding water, creating an acoustic shock wave that stunned the smaller shrimp. This allowed the pistol shrimp to secure what was to become lunch and drag it into a burrow it had made in the sand beneath the reef.

An hour later, the pistol shrimp was resting just outside its burrow and beside its constant, symbiotic partner – often referred to as a “watchman goby.” The shrimp’s antennae were resting upon the goby’s tail and body so that it could detect every movement of the fish. Having far better eyesight than its partner, the goby was the first to notice a large predator heading in their direction. Having no interest in exploring the inside of the predator’s stomach, the goby darted into the burrow it shared with the shrimp. Feeling the goby’s sudden movements, the shrimp assumed it had detected danger and ducked into the burrow with it. Their symbiotic relationship provided the shrimp with a lookout and provided the goby with a burrow in which to hide and to protect its eggs.

Tiny cavities are created in other situations when there are rapid changes in the pressures of small volumes of liquids. This is known as cavitation inception. When cavities are repeatedly imploded, they create impact stresses in contacting surfaces that result in wear of the surfaces. Such wear is known as cavitation. Cavitation processes come in two flavors: inertial (also known as transient) and noninertial. The process involving the pistol shrimp is inertial. Other inertial processes that include rapidly imploding cavities that produce shock waves commonly damage valves and boat propellers. In noninertial cavitation processes, a cavity is oscillated in size and/or shape, typically by an ultrasonic sound, when used in a cleaning bath. Cavitation may thus be understood to produce both beneficial and detrimental results.

While the pistol shrimp was enjoying its lunch and resting outside its burrow, a thief named Bernie was busy stealing a legally registered, unfired pistol during a B&E and grinding off its serial number. Following a tip to the police, Bernie was arrested under suspicion of having committed the B&E. The gun was found in his possession, and it became an important piece of evidence that linked him to the B&E. Without the serial number, however, how could investigators be certain the gun was the one stolen during the B&E … and what did that have to do with the pistol shrimp?

A common denominator between the pistol shrimp and the pistol serial number is cavitation. A pistol shrimp can use cavitation to get a meal, and a forensic examiner can often use cavitation to get a serial number from a pistol from which the number has been removed. Serial numbers (and/or letters) are typically pressure stamped into the metal of firearms. This not only displaces metal to form numbers, it displaces metal located below and beside the impressed numbers, rearranging its structure. To reveal the numbers, the area of the firearm that contained them is immersed in a fluid that is ultrasonically vibrated. The vibration causes cavitations that wear away the displaced metal faster than the nondisplaced metal, leaving in its place a cavitation-etched likeness of the original serial number. This procedure is known as the ultrasonic cavitation method.

Another restoration procedure is known as the chemical and electrochemical etching method. A forensic examiner using the method coats an area that previously bore a serial number with an etching solution. The solution etches the displaced metal faster than the nondisplaced metal surrounding it, revealing the original serial number. As indicated by the name of the procedure, the process can be accelerated by directing an electric current through the metal as well as by applying a chemical etching solution.

Yet another restoration procedure is known as the magnaflux method. This involves magnetizing the metal of a firearm and spraying it with an oil having iron particles suspended within it. Magnetic lines of force associated with a magnetic field created when the firearm was magnetized course through the metal, following contours of the metal. The iron particles in the oil align with the lines of force. The shapes of lines of force passing through displaced metal will follow the contours of the displaced metal, and the iron particle disposition will provide a copy of the original serial number that is visible to an examiner. This method has an advantage of being nondestructive, that is, it finishes with all the evidence it began with.

The serial number restoration method applied depends on the type of material used to make a firearm in question, how a serial number was originally applied and what was done while attempting to obliterate the serial number. In addition to the three methods of serial number determination described, sometimes simpler methods are all that are required. These include optically scanning the area that previously bore a serial number, perhaps after applying chalk to accentuate any remaining portions, and observing the area using various light sources.

Oh yes, Bernie will not be grinding any serial numbers for some time.

ADDITIONAL FACTS:

The snapping sound created by a pistol shrimp has a duration of less than a millisecond; but it compares in loudness (reportedly 218 decibels, which is twice as loud as a chain saw positioned a yard away) to sounds made by sperm and beluga whales. This makes the shrimp one of the loudest animals in the sea. The pressure of a sound wave emitted by a pistol shrimp is reportedly powerful enough to kill small fish and break glass, and the noise made by groups of pistol shrimp is loud enough to interfere with sonar and undersea communications.

When a cavity implodes as described in the foregoing, the pressure within it can reach several hundred atmospheres; and the temperature within it can reach several thousand degrees Fahrenheit,

It is unlawful to remove or change the serial number of a firearm.

As indicated in the foregoing, firearm serial numbers are not all restricted to actual numbers. Some also include letters.

The serial numbers of firearms made by one manufacturer are all different, but the numbers used by one manufacturer are sometimes the same as those used by another.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. July 19th, 2011 at 08:05 | #1

    Fascinating and clever. Yeah, that could apply to the shrimp and the tech procedure, but I’m referring to your writing style, Amalgam. Am in a hurry this morning but thought I’d steal a quick glance at your article, then comment later, but I couldn’t stop reading and – now – posting this. How anyone can take all this intricate science and filter it through a metaphor that even includes a “pistol” connection in the names, and then end up with such compelling narrative/explanation is a marvel of research, conceptualization and expression. Of course, this is why you are the go-to man for extremely complex patent research, and why you have been preeminent in so many wide-flung areas in your interesting life. I miss the days when we lived in the same state and had weekly lunches in Southfield where our conversations ranged from every conceivable science to every conceivable philosophy (and maybe a few inconceivable if not inscrutable topics) that had people around us sitting like spectators in a Roman Colosseum watching a Circus Maximus.

  2. Robert Jones
    July 19th, 2011 at 12:38 | #2

    Sully,

    Once again, thank you for the VERY kind words that keep my feet from ever scuffing the floor.

    I sometimes worry that I might go too far out on a limb with a relationship between what my pieces sometimes begin with and what they end with. But I like to ease readers into what they might fear as being complex in a novel manner and by using an interesting, pain-free hook of sorts. Doing it with apparently widely differing subjects is as interesting to me as I hope it is to readers, and it gives them two or more facts for the price of one.

    In researching cavitation and such, I noticed that materials I read typically just wrote around how the shrimp actually made its noise. I think that short-changed curious readers, and it prompted me to go into more detail.

    I miss our discussions also. Your comment about other lunchers listening to our conversations reminds me of one particular incident. The guy sitting in the booth behind you kept leaning his head back farther and farther as we discussed some interesting subjects. As we prepared to leave, I mentioned that my long-time work on something had finally been successful and that I now knew the true nature of the something and how it worked. I can’t recall what the something was, but it was something worthy of a Nobel-prize. The guy’s head really snapped back then. At that point, I said that we had better head back to work and that I would tell you all about the something in the car. With that, we got up and left the eavesdropper with but a crick in his neck.

    Regarding my patent research, the firm typically had professional searchers do that. I usually did some research on cases anyway, but I don’t recall doing anything unusual in that end of the business.

    Danke sehr, amigo.
    Amalgam

  3. July 19th, 2011 at 17:21 | #3

    By jing, I think I remember that day — you drew my attention to the eavesdropped in retrospect, right? Who was that ex-can who was a cook — 40 yr old black dude who looked like a teenager — and he and I used to go into animated conversation about how to make rosada rice? Yeah, I think we left some very unfinished echoes in that place, and a lot of people with stories to take home. Cheers, amigo.

  4. Robert Jones
    July 20th, 2011 at 07:04 | #4

    I recall the cook coming over to our booth. You ordered rosada rice so often that the staff went out of their way to make sure it was available every Friday. Them was indeed the days.

    Have a great Wednesday, mon ami.
    Amalgam

Comments are closed.