Summer is the season of airy sabbaticals, and today Sick Papes is taking a well-deserved break from the sweaty crust of the ivory tower to visit the realm of Cronodon, one of the most intriguing and expansive concavities of the internet. Cronodon is simultaneously a comprehensive scientific resource and a mythical, futuristic universe. The site is packed with detailed, accurate explanations of complex scientific concepts, such as the physics of trees and the metaphors of string theory. The science is balanced by pure imagination: fantasy voyages through the ancient Cromlech and hand-drawn illustrations of chimerical beasts. Cronodon is a useful reference text for biology, physics, and computer science students, and a gallery that exhibits the fantastical imagination of a singular internet artist

Cronodon is curated by an alter ego known only as Bot (whose intentionally vague bio and CV can be found here). Though Bot’s relationship with the earthly domain remains inexplicit, what is clear is that he/she has legitimate academic credentials and an abundance of creative energy. In this extensive interview, we explore the motivations for creating and maintaining Cronodon, and discuss how Bot transitioned from a trajectory of scientific research to being the conservator of an online “museum of the future”.

SP:   Can you describe the genesis of Cronodon? Which came first, the thorough academic treatises of Bio-tech or the whimsical fantasy scenarios of the Dark Side?

BOT:  I can’t actually remember which page was the first I wrote, apart from the default homepage, but when the site was only a few pages it already had elements of both. My first navigation bar contained ’SpaceTech’ and ‘Dark Side’ but no ‘BioTech’, so I guess my initial feelings were to focus on science fiction and the ‘Dark Side’, but that soon changed

When I was very young, well into single figures, I started imagining and drawing alien creatures and already knew that I wanted to be a scientist. Science fiction got me interested in science fact, through programs like Dr Who, Space 1999, Star Trek et al., and also vice versa: reading books about dinosaurs and prehistoric invertebrates got me thinking very early on what other forms of life might be possible. By the age of ten, I was asking my teachers awkward questions like, ‘How do starfish breath?’ However, during later education my creativity was almost destroyed through neglect, as I was so busy studying. Only some years after completing my degrees did it begin to return, inspired by what I had learnt and seen in nature. Some of the drawings on Dark Side are childhood drawings, and so not as artistic as I would like them to be, others are more recent.

I also remember that the graphics came first. As I developed an interesting Pov-Ray graphic I wrote an article related to it. Now it works both ways: I often write the article and then produce the graphics for it, whether in 2D or 3D.

SP:  The Cronodon bio states that, “As a neurobiologist, Bot was privileged to study insects on Earth, looking at their remarkable sensory systems. Bot worked in a top UK university disguised as an Earthling. (That was before much of the funding for such research was withdrawn by the UK Government, which is apparently incapable of valuing anything other than a narrow-minded approach to economics).” Can you elaborate on your departure from Academia? At what point did you decide to dedicate the majority of your effort to Cronodon?

BOT:  I departed full-time academic research about seven years ago, after six years as a post-doctoral research fellow. In short I left professional Academia because I felt it had become too controlled and too commercial. I moved to the US at this time and more-or-less immediately launched Cronodon, when somebody I know advised me too (‘no use hiding your light under a bushel,’ they later reminded me). In the first couple of years I kept my finger in academia by teaming up with academics in the US, though as a very part-time visiting academic rather than as an employee. Nevertheless some very useful research came from this partnership, so I was still publishing peer-reviewed papers even though I was not employed by an academic institution. Thus I left research gradually; indeed I still have one finger in one project as a voluntary contributor. I have also been lecturing on and off since, as a self-employed freelance consultant, and especially over the past year. Apart from the past 12 months, Cronodon has been my main focus for the past seven years. Ideally it would always be my main focus, though I enjoy lecturing too, and I need to do enough to pay the bills, it’s a matter of getting the balance right.

I left full-time research simply because I found the grant-awarding system frustrating; not so much because of the difficulty getting grants, though applying for them is overly-onerous and getting them is something of a political lottery, but because I got fed-up with being told what I could and could not research by grant-awarding bodies with a set agenda.

The most productive time I had in research was when we had an open grant in the US, but even in the US which traditionally values pure science and academia more than the UK, such grants are few and far between. More often academics have their hands tied by those who pay them. I simply was not happy in such a controlled environment, even though I was very successful as a researcher. Don’t misunderstand me, I researched some interesting problems and did some fun experiments, but I could not go where I wanted: it seemed to be forbidden by the system! I still read copious amounts of research articles, which shows that somewhere somebody is doing the kind of research that might have kept me onboard, but after 10 years in the system I realized that it wasn’t for me.

I needed to explore where my curiosity took me and be creative and to have freedom of thought. I personally could not find these things in a university research setting. As a freelance consultant I get a bigger choice of what to study and teach.

SP:   Much of the scientific material, particularly that relating to biology, is far more exhaustive, accurate, than the average peer-reviewed paper. Did you write these articles off the top of your head, or was there a process of meticulous research and editing?

SP:  Thank you, I do try to be as exhaustive and accurate as I can be in the time I have. In particular I feel that I have to offer something to the reader that other sites and publications do not and my own curiosity is insatiable. I love studying science subjects in breadth and depth and I often write articles to assist my own personal studies. Some articles I wrote more-or-less entirely from memory, although I always check facts I am unsure of against multiple sources if possible. My own notes, often collected over the years from many sources, are also sometimes directly transcribed into prose. (I have shelves full of thousands of pages of notes despite throwing most away to free-up space). I write articles with different target audiences in mind. Generally I try to cater for as wide an audience as possible, and so I often include elementary explanations in otherwise advanced articles. However, some articles are written primarily as summaries of my own extensive literature searches and as these are more likely to be read by academics I take extra care to add a bibliography.

As for editing: this has not been very meticulous and I do sometimes spot typos when referring back to my own work. I still have some articles in need of proof-reading! I do check by reading back paragraphs as I type them, but it is sometimes a while before I sit down and proofread whole passages of text and this usually happens when I need to remind myself of something or when I come to update the article. SP:   Given the un-verifiability of most internet content, are you concerned that Cronodon might not be recognized as a reliable source? Why did you choose to not include comprehensive literature citations?

BOT:  There are several reasons for this. The main aim of Cronodon is to get the information out there, especially as much of the information is not easily accessible to the greater public. Indeed, much of the classical research on invertebrate zoology and botany is being forgotten. Initially the first articles were quite basic and largely written from memory for a general audience. Inline referencing with the Harvard style is time-consuming and to some extent I have to compromise otherwise Cronodon would contain far fewer articles.

As articles have been updated and expanded to include more details, and also as a more academic audience is being drawn to Cronodon, I have begun adding bibliographies, by which I mean a list of sources and suggested further reading, rather than inline references, since this is quicker. As science expands, more and more information becomes textbook knowledge and referencing these basic facts becomes less important, however, a couple of articles, which were written to appeal to academics, do have inline referencing. Time constraints aside, inline referencing also makes text harder to read for a lay or young student audience and I do not want to break up the flow of text in this way. I might consider using a numbering system, but for now I think bibliographies should suffice.

I do believe that credit is where credit is due, and adding bibliographies is an ongoing task. However, Cronodon does not claim any ideas to be its own unless specifically stated – it is important that readers can distinguish between my own expert opinion and what is widely accepted by the wider scientific community. I have no desire to use Cronodon as a platform neither to pass off my own opinions as facts, nor to claim credit for ideas which are not my own. Cronodon respects copyright and where my graphics are inspired by other sources then these sources are credited.

Some people have emailed me asking for references and I have always sent them the references requested. This has also been an increasing incentive to add bibliographies. My main incentive for adding bibliographies is to assist the interested reader with further research, and I don’t think I need to make them exhaustive. People should always consult multiple sources.

SP:   Cronodon is packed with extraordinary 3D models of animals, spaceships, and aliens. How do you build these illustrations?

I am glad you find some of my 3D models interesting, thank you. These models are created using Pov-Ray, which is a free C-style graphical scripting language and ray-tracer which can be downloaded online. In other words, you type a small computer program or script, which includes special graphical commands, such as: sphere { <0,0,0>, 1 scale <1,5,1> pigment { color rgbt <1,0.2,0.6,0.4> } normal { bumps 1 scale 0.2 } } which, when a light and camera are also added, will draw an elongated purplish sphere with a bumpy texture when the image is rendered.

I generally start with a mental image of what the object looks like and then construct it in Pov-Ray code, using simple shapes like spheres, cylinders, cones and boxes and more complex shapes like sphere sweeps (which are good for tentacles and other organic shapes), blobs and mathematical formulae. Additionally, there is a powerful technique called constructive solid geometry. This allows these elementary shapes to be joined and merged in various ways, or even subtracted from one-another.

This can require a lot of mental arithmetic, though with practice these calculations become more intuitive, almost sub-conscious. Just like when we catch a ball we don’t consciously compute the necessary vectors, so with practice I find I can position the elements of an object correctly in 3D space without performing any rigorous computations. Some of my earlier graphics were a bit inaccurate though! I sometimes also resort to the ‘Hollywood effect’ (a technique I learnt whilst on a tour around Universal Studios in LA) – making sure the graphic looks right even if it isn’t! However, these days I tend to produce more accurate 3D representations which can be viewed from any angle and still look correct, but that is more time-consuming and became easier with practice.

I prefer this code-up approach rather than the more artistic approach of manipulating meshes like virtual putty, which many ‘professional’ 3D graphics programs do. Even though the latter can potentially generate more professional-looking graphics, I just find them awkward to use, though I may sit-down and learn to use them properly one day. I am not one of these people who puts in weeks of time to a single graphic, trying to make it look real, like a photograph. The biological graphics I try to make somewhat realistic but also clear, to maximize their educational value. The alien graphics I like to be aesthetic: I prefer the otherworldy look of unreality that computer graphics can create more so than photographic accuracy. Of course, the film industry has more powerful tools: they can scan 3D objects to generate 3D shapes from triangular meshes and then alter them. I do not have that luxury.

Pov-Ray also has third-party add-on tools, like Tom Aust’s ‘Tomtree’, which the author has kindly provided for general use, which enables one to construct realistic-looking trees. This is quite difficult to use at first, as you have to set a long list of parameters which alter things like bark texture, branch angle and the number of kinks in the trunk, etc. Tomtree seems to be underused by people, but with patience and the time taken to understand what the parameters do, and with a good background in observing trees in nature, good results are possible. The Pov-Ray community provides many useful tools, tips and tricks. Peter Houston’s ‘blobman’ is another one I have found useful.

There is often a degree of trial and error in Pov-Ray, especially when randomization is used to create more natural graphics and this is where the artist comes in: deciding what looks aesthetic and tweaking the parameters to bias the ‘randomness’ in the desired direction. Patience is often required: the most complex graphics I have produced took all night to render, though most take seconds or minutes. A graphic may have to be rendered and tweaked many times before it is finished. SP:   What advice would you have for young scientists hoping to pursue, as you say in your mission statement, “science for science sake”?

BOT:  Too many people today are automatically ‘programmed’ to think the only science worth doing is that which society tells them is worth doing. Take cell biology, for example. The primary goal ought to be to understand how cells work. This is interesting in itself, and would also have countless spin-offs for medicine and engineering. Ideally we would let those who just want to study cells, do so, and those that want to use this information to develop treatments for cancer to do so too. In reality, in order to attract funding everyone seems to claim their research is just about cancer, or similar matters of interest to medicine (i.e. to the pharmaceutical industry). Too many projects have to justify themselves in this incorrect manner. This is not ‘science for science sake’. Science needs no justification. Science should not be subservient to technological industries, which have their own proper place. This increasing commandeering of science by the corporate world has, I think, also led to an exponential increase in public mistrust of science.

To do ‘science for science sake’, I would say, above all else, follow your heart and your true intellectual curiosity. Put science first, even before your own career and political standing. If you do science for any other reason then you are not doing ‘science for science sake’. If your key interest happens to be fashionable with funding bodies, then you are fortunate, if not then leave university research as I did.  Consider working for a museum. Everything that exists is worthy of study. In my opinion a true scientist puts science first. The key is to always keep an open mind and follow your own inner curiosity. Be intrinsically motivated and strive to self-actualize. Take inspiration from Mother Nature.

You may also have to: ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s’! By this I mean you may have to endure financial hardship, particularly if you find the system will not let you follow your curiosity. At least this is my experience. It is a worthy trade to observe the wonders of Nature. Like the sages of old you may find yourself an ‘eremite’ wandering from abode to abode, accumulating little of financial worth, but you will learn much and see many wonders. The most productive years of my life I was without full-time employment. I was lucky that I had people to help support me. If I had remained in full-time employment, then Cronodon would not exist! Even though it is possible to pursue hobbies whilst fully employed, I needed a long span of time to contemplate, do my own research and tap my inner psyche. Science, for me, is a spiritual and intellectual quest. Working for money, or any other mundane reason, makes it hard to find one’s true inner scientist! I have simply returned to what I enjoyed so much as a child: exploring science and the wonders of Nature and imagining life on alien worlds! I am never more myself and never more fulfilled than when I follow my own scientific and artistic interests and when I work on Cronodon. SP:  What are your future plans for Cronodon? Are you hoping to expand content in specific areas, or alter the scope of the site?

BOT: At the moment, due to time constraints, much of my work on the site has been in improving existing content, and adding the occasional new article. I intend to fill a few key gaps. There are some major groups of invertebrates I have yet to write about. I want to add more articles on quantum physics (the ones I have added have been quite popular) as there are some interesting key topics I still want to discuss. Writing these articles also helps clarify my own understanding, so I shall write new articles on whatever topics grab my interest. Some of the older articles still need reworking, and bibliographies are waiting to be added where applicable.

Up until a year ago, when I had more spare time, I was developing my Plutonium project in which the reader can interactively explore a region of space in a virtual spaceship. This project combines science fiction with science fact. It was nearing a functional level of completion but has been left hanging for the past year. There are some scripted worlds to visit and some hidden aliens to discover (aliens and worlds which not even the Google search engines have discovered so far as they are on ‘hidden’ pages the reader has to find by exploring space) and I hope to add many more soon, when time permits. This project combines two of my favorite areas of science: biology and astrophysics, with science fiction, computer programming and computer art and so seems to be the ultimate synthesis of where Cronodon has been going over the years.

Biology will likely remain the main emphasis of Cronodon, as it is my main discipline. However, I do enjoy writing physics essays, but I see no point, and indeed have no time, to write exhaustive articles on the topic complete with mathematical proofs, when so many textbooks already do this. Instead I shall target key areas that grab my interest, especially when I think I can summarize highly technical concepts and introduce them to a wider audience or provide more complete explanations. Although a trained mathematician, I usually avoid mathematical articles, though I have written some, as this expands the scope a bit too far for the time I have. However, physics textbooks often omit many steps from key proofs, expecting the reader to fill in the gaps. I may write some key articles that may be of interest to students with fuller proofs and explanations in these areas. I am planning some more mathematics and computing projects, for my own amusement, and so some articles on these topics are likely to appear.

In short, where I expand will depend where my interest takes me and what time I have available. At the same time I want to keep the current general flavour of Cronodon and not all my projects are likely to appear online. Cronodon displays only a small and selective sample of my projects and investigations into science. In the end time defeats us all, and I would really love to find a like-minded person to work with and maybe carry it on from me one day.

SP: Given the remarkable effort you put into the site, and the high quality of content you produce, do you feel that Cronodon receives the recognition it deserves?

BOT: Thank you for the positive feedback! Recognition and publicity are always welcome if they help more people find Crondon and benefit from it. Whatever recognition Cronodon deserves is not for me to judge, but individuals do send me feedback occasionally, generally positive, and some people have obtained permission to use some of my graphics in their publications. Sometimes people contact me to thank me for providing information they found hard to find elsewhere. I would like more people to find the site and find something of value in it. People do sometimes contact me to say how glad they were to find my site, but also how hard it was to find! Many of the graphics do appear in Google images given the right search phrases.

It certainly has been a lot of effort, though I could do so much more if I had the time, but I still have to work for a living, albeit part-time to cater for my somewhat ‘minimalistic’ lifestyle.

I do recall the CEO of Google saying how he would like to see more people combine science with art for educational purposes and to inspire people to become more interested in science. I feel that I am trying to do just that. Maybe I should contact Google and see if there is anymore they can do to help promote Cronodon, apart from compiling links with their search bots. I simply don’t have the money to pay for advertising. Still, I like to think that the curious will find my site eventually.

The Electric Force - Electrostatics: Potential Energy fields around Point Electric Charges

Composed by Bot, who has a PhD in Neurobiology and who has under his/her belt several years work ("in a top UK university") as a professional research scientist studying the nervous systems of insects.

[1] On the top-left we have a single (positive) charge. The RGB scale shows the highest charge region in red, the lowest in blue and the algorithm used highlights the contours (equipotentials).

[2] On the top-right, two positive charges are shown in an orange-blue scale. ____________________________________

[3] On the bottom-left are two positive charges in RGB, illustrating a common equipotential, in green, enclosing both charges.

[4] On the bottom-right a positive charge (red centre) is shown opposite a negative charge (blue centre) of equal magnitude.

On this RGB scale green illustrates values close to zero, where the positive and negative potentials cancel one another. ____________________________________

Remember electric charge comes in two ‘flavours’ - negative (-) and positive and like charges (- and - or and ) repel whereas opposite charges (- and or and -) attract!

From the Encyclopædia Cronodonica Compiled by Bot, who has a PhD in Neurobiology and who has under his/her belt several years work (in a UK university) as a research scientist working on the nervous systems of insects.