From Monday, the lockdown is being significantly eased, but it's unclear whether there is any science to back up the move. So before we go through the argument, let's take a look at Boris Johnson announcing changes at Thursday's Daily Downing Street press briefing. Lastly, I know the toll the lockdown has taken on families and friends who've been unable to see each other. So from Monday, we will allow up to six people to meet outside provided those from different households continue strictly to observe social distancing rules by staying two metres apart. At the moment, as you know, people can meet in parks, but not in private gardens. And this was a cautious first step. But we know that there is no difference in the health risk. So we will now allow people to meet in gardens and other private outdoor spaces. So that wasn't all the changes that were announced. Let's get those up now. It takes a while to get these points across. So from Monday, groups of up to six people can meet outside, including parks, but also now gardens. That's what's been added. Schools will reopen for reception year one and year six. And outdoor retail and car showrooms will open from the 15th of June. That's two weeks time. Some face to face contact for years 10 and 12 and other non essential retail to open. So a significant loosening of the lockdown there. I mean, I'm certainly going to be enjoying going out and sitting in six in groups of six people in a park. And there's no point in pretending that's not a good thing. But the problem and there is a big problem for the government here, which is this moment for loosening the lockdown for taking significant steps to increase the amount that we come into contact with each other. It goes completely against the advice which the government set for themselves. So it goes against the criteria which the government set for loosening the lockdown. Let's take a look at the COVID alert levels, which were introduced by the government. These are on the government's website. And it was introduced in that speech now infamous about three weeks ago, where Boris Johnson spoke to the nation and said, we've got to stay alert and was very ambiguous about what is and what isn't opening. So then Boris Johnson said, we're on level four. That is when a COVID-19 epidemic is in general circulation. Transmission is high or rising exponentially. And the action then is the current social distancing measures and restrictions. So that was the social distancing measures that were in place three weeks ago and up to now. Now, what Boris Johnson said then is that for us to go to the next phase, we'll have to go down to level three. That's when the COVID-19 epidemic is in general circulation, but it's not the transmission is not high. And that is when we'll have the gradual relaxing of restrictions and social distancing measures. Now, what we're getting at the moment is gradual relaxing of restrictions and social distancing measures. So you might expect we're at level three, the Lemon and Herb level, as Ash calls it. That is what also Boris Johnson suggested when he was speaking to the Parliamentary Liaison Committee earlier this week. So on Wednesday, Boris Johnson said, we're coming down the COVID alert system. We're coming down from level three to level four. We hope we're taking a decision tomorrow. So given that the lockdown, it was announced the lockdown would be easing yesterday. We would imagine that they decided, the scientists decided that, yes, we must have got to alert level three. However, that didn't happen. So at the Downing Street Daily Briefing, this was at the press conference or the one for journalists, not the one that gets streamed on TV. Sam Coates from Sky tweeted this. So Downing Street Daily Briefing, Government was unable to reduce coronavirus threat level below four. Boris Johnson signaled on Wednesday it was likely to be reduced to three. But the Joint Biosecurity Unit did not agree to this yesterday. Lockdown lifting goes ahead nevertheless. So this is, it's important to note, right, this idea of these five alert levels, this isn't something that independent sage came up with or some group of people who were separate from the government and potentially critical of them. This was published by the government. This is the government told us they're setting up this biosecurity unit precisely so that when we get to the next phase of our COVID-19 response, it will be science led, not politically led. That's why they invented those categories. They've gone to that biosecurity unit and said, are we ready to go down to alert level three? They've said no.  Right. I mean, and journalists asked about this at today's daily press conference and no one could answer the question. They just kept changing the subject. I mean, it's a bit like when they announced that R was the most important thing. Then they had a press conference. They had a whole video explaining the concept of R. Then they had to announce that R had risen a bit. And then the scientists had to stand up there. I think it was Jenny Harris that time saying, oh, actually, R, who cares about R? It's just one of many things we have to keep an eye on. So they keep railing their own tests. Well, this table is only less than a month old. It's not like it's six months old and you go, okay, well, they're a bit embarrassed. That was an approach they don't really want to. First of all, nobody asked this table. It wasn't like a demand. You have to do this. It was something they completely unprompted said, we want to be judged by this less than a month ago. And so either that or the moves taken today, the measures taken today announced today, something's being led here by media strategy rather than public health strategy, right? Hey, maybe even both probably. And you're right.  I wouldn't even say the politics are coming before the science.  I mean, the table just makes and also when that was published three weeks ago, I said, why would you do that? Why would you create these incredibly arbitrary categories? We might be doing really well on one thing, but not so well on something else. And why don't you give yourself more room to maneuver?  Things are still looking terrible. I think ultimately we're going to have a second spike and the government's going to continue to fail on all of this. And that remains to be seen. I hope that's not the case. But I think that was very much a PR stunt. I don't think it was ever actually something the government wished to be measured by. And the fact that he says having today, I think that confirms that. Well, I mean, it might make sense to have an independent joint biosecurity unit, which is separate from the policymakers to advise you whether or not we are in a situation to loosen the lockdown. The problem is they created it and now they're ignoring it. Well, it was more on the key part of their announcement. Well, it was more on the kind of terrorist alerts after the 777 bombings rights. You had color coding, etc. quite similar sort of categorization. So I always thought it was more public relations led, you know, the sort of similarities that had to the sort of terror alert levels. Remember them? It was sort of, you know, it was echoing through every government press conference and news program for about six months a year after 2005, 2006, 2007, all the way up to 777 basically for about a couple of years. But yeah, I never had faith in it, Michael. But I'm glad you did. I'm glad somebody did. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, you know, but I just keep getting disappointed. We're also going to go now to a worrying quote from Professor John Edmund. So he is one of really the two top modelers who are advising Sage. So along with Neil Ferguson, he's at the London School of Medicine and Tropical Hygiene. We've actually mocked him a couple of times on the show because he was the person who went on Channel 4 News arguing for herd immunity and then went on Channel 4 News six weeks later denying that herd immunity was, you know, could even conceivably be a strategy. So it doesn't even make sense to talk about that as a strategy. But in this case, I mean, he's still on stage. He's still a top modeler and he is independent from the government, even if he tied himself in knots before. But this is what he said today to, this was a briefing to journalists at the Science Media Centre. We can get this quote. I think many of us would prefer to see the incidents driven down to lower levels because that would mean we have fewer cases occurring before we relax the measures. If we had incidents at a lower level, even if the reproduction level went up a bit, we wouldn't be in a position where we were overwhelming the health service. I think at the moment with relatively high incidents, relaxing the measures and with an untested track and trace system, I think we are taking some serious risks here. Even if that risk doesn't play out and we keep the incidents flat, we're keeping it flat at quite a high level. All right. So this is one of the top modelers sitting on stage. We've got a government which is supposed to be following the science.  Anyway, let's abandon that pretend. But I haven't heard them say that yet. Yet they are breaking their own rules, breaking their own recommendations in terms of loosening while they're still on alert level four. And now the top modeler on stage, now that Neil Ferguson has gone, is saying he'd prefer the levels of COVID-19 because I think the ONS are predicting that there's still 9,000 people getting infected a day would be much lower before we start loosening these social distancing measures. And the government are presumably completely ignoring this guy. I mean, I don't know if Sage has had any input in terms of the loosening of the lockdown at this point in time. Has anybody asked that question? I mean, that's a really good question, isn't it? It is. Yeah. I'm not sure if Sage have had much input. It doesn't seem like it. It seems, you know, the whole plastic, we're flattening the curve. Do you remember the government saying we're flattening the curve at 1,000 deaths per day? That's not an accomplishment. We're flattening the curve at a really high level. We're ending lockdown with still significant numbers of people dying and like you say, the R-Rate being really high. I mean, it seems we're skeptics. You know, we're not the Tories fans the best of times, but I think even to a supporter of the conservatives, this seems pretty quite injured issues. It seems like a huge risk. I mean, it seems it seems of a risk on a scale that could bring down the government. You know, if it goes very badly wrong, it's unclear to me how the government, well, not necessarily the government, but the prime minister, it seems very unclear to me how the prime minister could then respond if we get a second spike. If we ever go back to 1,000 deaths a day this year, I really struggle to see how you'd have a prime minister that stays on. I want to take us back to Monday. On that show, we mentioned that after Dominic Cummings' sort of bizarre explanation of his experience in Durham. After that, the prime minister had a press conference and we were expecting Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty to speak at that. That's what journalists have been told. They were there in Downing Street to do that and we saw them scuttling away at about, I think it was about half five and we ended up with someone else up on stage. I think it was Yvette Doyle and it was suggested at the time, it was speculated that potentially the reason they didn't have those two top scientists up there was because Boris Johnson didn't want them to get asked about Dominic Cummings and give an answer which he didn't like. Now, the first time we saw those two back up on stage was yesterday and basically that confirmed all of our suspicions. Let's take a look. Thank you, Prime Minister. Durham Police have said this afternoon they would have sent Dominic Cummings home if they'd found him in Barnard Castle. If one of your most senior team wasn't paying proper attention to the rules, why should anyone else and to the doctor, as if I may, is that the kind of example that you want people to follow? Well, Laura, first of all, can I say, I've said quite a lot on this matter already and what I also noticed that the Durham Police said was that they were going to take no action and that the matter was closed and I intend to draw a line under the matter. As I said, I think yesterday to the Parliamentary Liaison Committee, they're not taking any action and I intend to draw a line under it and all I can say, and I know that you've asked Chris and Patrick, but I'm going to interpose myself if I may and protect them from what I think would be an unfair and unnecessary attempt to ask a political question. It's very, very important that our medical officers and scientific advisors do not get dragged into what I think most people will recognise is fundamentally a political argument and if that's all right, Laura, and could we go now to Robert Peston of ITV? So you saw that, I mean, I don't know if you watched that live, but it was absolutely, you know, such a moment, him standing there and saying, no, you cannot ask them that question and then not allowing Laura Koonsburg a follow-up, she was basically muted, he went straight to Peston, Robert Peston actually asked a similar question, he was like, I don't think it is that political because it's a scientific necessity that people get a clear message about what they should do if they have symptoms of coronavirus and so the scientist should be able to give an opinion on that. Boris Johnson then interposed himself in his language. Again, you ended up with Sam Coates from Sky sort of saying to the two scientists, are you fine with Boris Johnson gagging you on this? Wink if you have problems with it. He went to them, they said, to be honest, we don't want to get involved in this Eva. But I mean, I think, obviously, completely shameful for Boris Johnson. I also think for those two, I mean, they should have the guts to say, you know, it's not political to comment on whether it's appropriate to drive from a part of the country with high levels of COVID, sorry, London at that point in time, to a part of the country with low levels of COVID, Durham at that point in time when you have symptoms. And the reason is because you will burden hospitals in rural areas and seed coronavirus from places with high levels of the disease, to places with low levels of the disease. And if we do have many people doing this, if they've got, if they've been texted to say you have to self isolate for 14 days, it's also worth noting that it doesn't seem like there's any financial package that's been attached to that. You're just supposed to. So, you know, Dominic Cummings didn't want to self isolate in his four story house with his great income. Some people are going to be asked to self isolate for 14 days without symptoms, without any extra money in their little flats. You know, it's the idea that you can have a strong public public health message without condemning what Dominic Cummings has done. This isn't about resignations. This is about what it's raining saying it's raining. And I think if you've got scientists who are unwilling to say that because they feel that that would, I suppose undermine their boss fundamentally in this situation, that just the whole thing just becomes a complete joke. Aaron, I know you watched that live because we were what's happening at the time. What did you think? I mean, my, my jaw literally dropped. I couldn't believe it. I mean, I couldn't believe it. I could not believe the prime minister was stopping, not just, you know, it wasn't Sienna from labelists. It wasn't Michael Walker from the forum media. This was Rob Peston, Laura Kuhnsberg, two highly favorable journalists from broadcast media, not being given second sort of responses, which you know, about a month ago, a bit more than a month ago, that was that was established as protocol. They could, they could get that a follow up. It was remarkable. And I agree with you. I think the response actually from, from Valence and Witty was that it was Valence and Witty, wasn't it? I thought it was deplorable. And they said, we don't want to get, like you say, involved in politics. It's not politics. It's public health. But what it illustrates to me is I have a sort of structural explanation for this, which is that because we don't have the formal separation of powers in this country, these people are political appointment appointees. And ultimately, they see themselves as being dependent on the goodwill of the prime minister and the executive or the governing party, rather than say the legislature. And I think that I think that's a problem. I think because you have so much power because the British system in the person of the prime minister, in the cabinet, I think that that makes this whole process very toxic. The idea of an apolitical impartial technocrat, which is what the chief medical officer is, we've had that roll since the First World War. I think it's particularly problematic now in an era of polarized politics, when you have a prime ministerial system. In the US, you've got the president, they would be answerable instead to Congress. I think it's much, much healthier. And so, yes, that's not good enough. I think when the investigation comes, that's what I thought when I saw their response. When the investigation comes or the inquiry comes, you're really in deep shit because you've basically just said, I am absolving myself of any blame when you should have just done your job fundamentally and said, yes, it's not abiding by the rules. We recommend other people don't do it. You didn't need to slay the guy. You didn't need to say he has to resign. You just need to say people probably shouldn't do that. No, we would consider it unwise, which is kind of what the Durham police did. We think he probably might have broke the rules. We would suggest people don't do it. They thought the trip to Barnard Castle was bad. The original trip wasn't all that, I mean, I presume they probably thought it was. They just don't want to create too much for sort of political scene. They could have done that. They could have done it really easily. And I think there were cowards for doing what they did, but I also have, like I said, that structure explanation. Should he resign? Political question. Did he break the rules? Not a political question.


Hey guys, Britt here and here with Fandle. Today, we're going to talk about how to place multi-race bets. If you like betting parlays in other sports, then these bets are definitely something you want to check out. Just like a parlay, in order to win your bet, you have to hit multiple legs, or in this case, multiple races. You can combine your win bets from two consecutive races to as many as sixth straight races. And just like a parlay, the more bets you combine, the bigger the payout. Oh, and if you need some help picking winners for each race, be sure to check out Fandle's power ratings. It's the easiest way to see how every horse stacks up against the rest of the field. So the next time you want to bet more than one race, you know just which bet to place. If you like this video, be sure to check out the rest of our Racing 101 series.


So this afternoon's lecture is going to be on what I've loosely titled, Advanced Sands Methods. This is essentially divided into four different categories and is really talking about methods that go beyond the standard type of sands instrument that we've been talking about so far. So here we're talking about being able to measure larger structures than a typical sands instrument can measure being able to measure surface structures. Looking at how structure evolves with time and also then not working in inverse space for making measurements that are more directly related to real space structures. But at the same time still using small angle scattering. Alright, so if we start with measuring larger structures, we want to be able to configure a sands instrument to measure larger objects, right? So what can we do, thinking back to the lecture I gave yesterday about how we set up sands instruments and what you've had today about doing experiments. What can we do with a sands instrument to allow us to measure larger sizes? Does anybody have any thoughts? What things can we do to measure bigger things? Have a very large sample to detector distance. Yes, that's one option, yep. Any other thoughts? And increasing the Q, it was the lower velocity neutrons. Yeah, so exactly, so using slower, longer wavelength neutrons to get to lower Q values, exactly, yes. And so we essentially therefore have what it amounts to is three different options, right? We can increase the distance for a given beam size. So we set our collimation such that we don't change the actual size of the beam and increase L2, or we can decrease the beam size. So remember we can make the aperture smaller. So that makes the beam size smaller whilst keeping L2 constant, so that gives us a smaller angle as well. Or we can increase the wavelength at some given setting of the instrument. So if we look at this, then we have these three options, right? So we could calculate the required L2 to reach three times 10 to the minus five inverse angstroms using neutrons at a typical high intensity wavelength for a reactor. So four angstroms. We could choose to say, right, we want to get down to a very low Q. So one times 10 to the minus five inverse angstroms, that gets us down to something on the order of 10 microns in size. So what would it take to get to that with a wavelength of four angstroms? And also what would be the minimum accessible Q under circumstances like this, which are perhaps typical of a long sand instrument, if we use a wavelength of 20 angstroms? And so we can calculate these using a fairly straightforward set of combinations. We know how to calculate Q. We know the relationship between the beam size and the distance here and this angle. And that's really the minimum. Essentially, we can take that as a minimum scattering angle, the edge of the beam stop or the edge of the direct beam. And so we can calculate any of these terms given the other components. And what we find, right, if we go ahead and calculate this for these conditions, what we find is that here, if we want to be able to get down to these three times 10 to the minus five inverse angstroms, so this is order of micron in size, using four angstrom neutrons, we end up with an L2 that's 654 meters. That's quite long. And so what might be the problems associated with having such a long secondary flight path? I remember that the primary flight path would be essentially the same, so this will be a 1.2 kilometer long instrument. So aside from building one, can you think of any physics reasons why this might be a problem? Could it be that neutrons like start to deviate a bit from the top? Yes, exactly. Yes. So neutrons have mass and they are moving at normal velocities, so to speak. And so they are affected by gravity. And so the neutrons would actually be, as they're leaving the end of your sample, they're actually mostly traveling in parabolic paths. And so neutrons would basically have hit the floor before they ever got anywhere close to the detector. In fact, on the Long Sands Instrumented ILL D11, just a secondary flight path of only 40 meters, already neutrons at reasonable wavelengths are hitting the bottom of the detector rather than the middle. And so gravity is real and affects neutrons. The other issue is that in order to do this, we end up with a very low flux because of the narrow divergence that we, the narrow angle range that we have to have. So we end up with very few neutrons. So not only do they hit the floor, but not very many of them actually made it to our sample in the first place. In the second case, we can say, well, okay, we need to keep it at 30 meters. So what do we do if we just make the beam size smaller? So this now means that if we go to our optimum setting of matched collimation, 30 plus 30, and having the sample aperture half the size of the source aperture, we end up with a sample aperture of just under one millimeter. And this is very small, right? And so again, we come up against the issue of flux and the number of neutrons that we're able to actually get through our sample. And because we've gone for this matched collimation, we actually lose neutrons as a, you know, the square of the diameter twice, twice. And so we lose an awful lot of neutrons in this. And then we say, well, okay, what's, what could we do if we had a normal sands instrument with a sensibly sized beam? So we have a reasonable number of neutrons, but then we go to the longest reasonable wavelength we might get off a sands instrument. In general, because the flux from the source of neutrons drops off with lambda to the minus five and Maxwell in a Boltzmann distribution, we lose neutrons very quickly. This is somewhat compensated by the fact that the scattered intensity goes roughly as lambda to the three. So we end up with a sort of lambda to the minus two or so change in intensity as we go, so we don't lose as much as we might. But fundamentally, we're still limited by the number of neutrons that come out and 20 Anglons is about the maximum that you can realistically use on any sands instrument. And with a normal sized sands instrument, we simply can't get down to the length scales that we want to get to the Q values we want to get to to get to the large length scales that might be interesting. So you can imagine, for instance, the type of systems I'm talking about here are you want to study emulsion droplets. You want to be able to measure both the structure of the interface and the droplet size distribution. So you need to go into the micrometer range. It's just as an example.  If you're interested in geological samples, they have a lot of structure in the micron range and so on. But this still doesn't get us there and we've had to throw away a lot of neutrons to even not get to the queue queue we wanted to get to. But we do make measurements on these very low Q values and at very larger structures with sands. So, so how do we do it? Well, there are a number of different options. The one of the first ones that was done was actually use lenses to focus the neutron beam. And this allows us to increase the flux for those case where we had a very small beam size, we effectively can multiply up the number of neutrons we get. And the next method that became popular was what we call usands, which is ultra small angle scattering or ultra high resolution small angle neutron scattering depending on how you count it. And this uses a totally different design of instrument to achieve those very small Q values, and you can see this is the method we used to get down to the very lowest Q. And then there's another method that's come along in the last decade or so called V sands, which is since imaginatively for very small angle neutron scattering. And then there's another method of multiplexing beams to allow us to get again increase the flux we get whilst having very small beam sizes. So how do these all work. So one of the nice things about neutrons is the fact that they essentially behave like electromagnetic radiation we can. We can diffract them, refract them, focus them and reflect them. Right. And so we can take lenses that have a made of a material that has a suitable refractive index so suitable scattering intensity. In this case, my knees in fluoride is the is the usually the material of choice. And we can then work out how many lenses we need and where we need to put them. And so for instance, here's an example. We want to focus a tank stop neutrons. It's easier generally to focus longer wavelength neutrons so you pick somewhere where the you still have enough of them. And then we have certain radius of curvature, and then we have a settings, fixed settings for our instrument, and then we can work out how many lenses we need. Unfortunately, unlike light and an actual electromagnetic radiation neutron still interact fairly weekly with materials so the amount we can bend the neutron beam is actually quite small. Using these types of methods. So we end up needing quite a large stack of lenses to be able to focus the beam over these distances. And so actually we end up with a stack of lenses of 36, a third stack of 36 lenses with a focal length of six meters six minute meters. And there are various different calculations you can do to determine exactly for your given configuration of instrument what the lenses are needed. We used it a number of reactor sources to be able to achieve lower Q values, whilst increasing the intensity of the beam. The key thing to note here is the fact that what we're doing in fact is focusing at the sample in this case. We're not focusing on the detector. Okay, so the beam size at the detector is actually not as small as it would be if we didn't have the lenses, but is still smaller than it would be to achieve the same minimum Q. So it's a complicated set of combinations of factors. So another way of getting to lower Q is to use V sands. And essentially what this is is this is a series of pinholes that are aligned such that we get a whole set of independent sand instruments effectively all converging to the same spot on the detector. And so by by doing so we end up multiplying up the number of beams we have, and essentially focusing them in space, so that they all hit the detector at the same point. This actually requires us to have a larger sample than normal to be able to make most of it, but allows us to achieve much higher fluxes than we could for such tiny pinholes. And so in practice what this looks like is you have instead of a single aperture you put in a plate with many apertures on. And you calculate exactly the series of many sets of these apertures you need to prevent crosstalk so that there's only one path for any given set of neutrons. And you also then need a set of lenses to remove to make sure you're removing distortions, some prisms to counteract gravity. And these all need to be nitrogen cooled. And then they eventually can hit the detector in the same place. So this is the instrument at the Helmholtz Center in Berlin which closed in 2019 that did this although it was not very often used. The only instrument currently operating and with with potentially having this setup is the V-sands instrument at NIST. And even then actually they're only operating with converging slits rather than converging pinholes at the moment because aligning these pinholes is extremely difficult. The instrument under development and being built at the Chinese Sipulation Neutron Source will also make use of this method to get to much lower Q. And the SCARDI instrument being built here at ESS will use a similar system but it will actually use slit collimators in a different design to be able to also reach a much smaller Q values. The last example of getting down to really very low Q is a completely different design of instrument. This isn't an add-on to a existing Sands instrument. This is a used Sands instrument and it's what is known as a Bonse Hart type of diffractometer. It's a double crystal diffractometer basically. So what we have is we have the neutrons coming out of the reactor. By the way, can you all see my mouse pointer? Yes. Yes, good. We have the neutrons coming out of the reactor here. They passed through some filters. Remember, we talked about filters the other day. These remove unwanted wavelengths that we don't want for our experiment. We have a curved graphite premonochromator here. So this both focuses the beam and also provides some degree of monochromation. Again, we talked about monochromators. And then here we have a pair of silicon crystals. And these are actually single crystals of silicon about so big that have a channel cut into it and then are made into three blades. And the key point here is that these are all from the same crystal, right? So the crystal planes in all of those blades are perfectly aligned, even if the mechanically the surfaces aren't. So we can cut the the ball of silicon in the right way. So now we would have this silicon 111 crystal plane or another choice to do or something like this, depending upon the wavelength you want. And then so the beam comes in, it hits one part of the monochromator is diffracted. It's another part of the monochromator is diffracted again. It's another part of the monochromator and is diffracted again. And so now through this diffraction, we've done two things. We have selected the wavelength we want very precisely, but also because it's a single crystal and the angular range over which the brag condition is met is very narrow. And so we've not only chosen the wavelength we want very precisely, but we've also chosen the angular spread of the beam very precisely in the in the diffraction plane. We then pass this through our sample, and then we have an analyzer crystal. And if this analyzer crystal and this monochromator crystal are perfectly aligned, then only neutrons that have not been scattered will be diffracted again and reach the detector. What we can then do is we can rotate this crystal by a very small amount and not a few micro radians. And then we now are only neutrons that have been scattered by that angle will now meet the brag condition. And by scanning that analyzer we're now scanning through scattering angle and the scanning through q space. And we can do this with very fine precision and get very, very small angles of measurement. This in fact was the instrument that I used to be responsible for when I worked at this before I, before I came here. And so this means we can now get down to these extremely small q values, as well as going up and overlapping with the measurements we can make with a regular sounds instrument. This sounds fairly wonderful, but there are some caveats one, it's because it's a scanning technique, then time resolved measurements are difficult. Also, the flux of neutrons is very low because we have so narrowly defined the wavelength and divergence. So you remember I mentioned when I was talking about using crystals as monochromators that one of the problems was it really cut down the flux, but it absolutely does here. So a measurement that might take eight hours to make on this instrument for one sample to scan over a relatively from say 10, 3, 10 to the minus five out to 10 to the minus three even not even that 10 to minus two inverse angstroms. And so it's much slower so time resolved measurements are rather out of the question. And the other challenge is that these are channel cut crystals right so they have diffraction in this direction. And so they're narrowing the divergence in this direction, but there's no diffraction in the vertical direction. And so the divergence in the vertical direction is very wide. So in effect, what we're doing here is if you imagine this plot, the circles are constant Q contours. So we're going out here this is a Q value this is a Q value this is a Q value and it's the same, all the way around. You know, the vector changes but the magnitude is the same. So in the given setting of our analyzer we're looking at some Q value in this horizontal direction. And we have very good resolution in this direction right this is due to our diffraction and and beam spread. However, in the other direction we have essentially very poor resolution. You can see that it the resolution is on the order of point one inverse angstroms and that's much much many odds of magnitude higher than what we're measuring. So there's a significant effect on how the data looks on the resolution of the measurement. And so here we have the form factor for a sphere. And this is what the same thing would look like if we measure it on the use and instrument. But we know this. And so when we analyze the data we can take our model, apply this resolution function to it and fit the data directly. So the resolution function for the sands instrument in the same way and and co and co analyze sands and use and state. And so we can still extract information across a very wide Q range, but this has to be born in mind when you're thinking about the analysis of such an instrument. And so we have a lot more slit v sands that also has a slit geometry, which gives this very asymmetric resolution function, which causes some odd effects to the data that you have to take into account when you analyze it. All right. So that's covering all the different ways that we can measure much bigger things out to order 10 microns or so. And then we can actually measure very wide, very wide Q ranges and size ranges indeed. But what if we want to measure surface structures. So, we can actually measure very wide Q ranges and size ranges and deep, but what if we want to measure surface structures. So, in general, sands can provide you with information about the bulk structure in plane, if you set the geometry up correctly, and has quite a strong penetration depth, if you don't restrict the beam size. Whereas reflectometry provides information only in the generally only in the plane perpendicular to the surface. And that is usually limited to a few hundred nanometers of depth of information. And that is usually limited to a few hundred nanometers of depth of information. So how can we measure the in plane structure of thin films? Well, one way is just to make a lot of thin films, right? So get enough material in the beam so that we get a scattering signal. If we, this is fairly common, if you're interested in the in plane structure of films, you make a whole bunch of silicon wafers, put films on all of them, stack them up, put them in the beam, and look at the in plane structure. Right, because then you're just doing a standard transmission measurement just limited to thin films. And this is actually very straightforward, aside from necessarily making films that are the same uniform across each sample, but the problem is here that ideally we have several micron thick films. So that if that's the type of films you're talking about, that's great. But you're really not looking at the near surface region then right you're you're well away from any surface effects once you're into the micron sizes. And you may need many wafers and potentially the background from the substrate can be significant. So here this is where thinking about doing some deterioration schemes and things to enhance the contrast in your sample would end up being necessary if that's possible for the sample. The other thing is to do a reflectometry experiment. In, if you have a two dimensional detector on your reflectometry instruments, then in general you will see scattering that happens off the specular direction, which we refer to very imaginatively as off specular reflectivity. In general, because of the choice of collimation in a reflectometry experiment and so on. What we can do is we can probe sort of micrometer length scale structures in the direction of the beam, right. So, but we get because of the width of the beam we use reflectometry we get no information in the, the y direction, which is along the surface perpendicular to the beam. And so so we can use this off specular structure. And in fact actually this off specular scattering is often assumed to mostly be background signal that you want to subtract from your specular reflectivity and so actually regularly we will use the area next to the specular region a picture like this as a definition of our background signal. But in fact if there is structure there will be information in this. The other option is to do what's known as grazing incident sands or GI sands or g sans depending upon or g sans depending upon your choice of of acronym and language. There are two different regimes, we should sort of we have to sort of consider here. One is what I call true g sans. This is where the incoming neutrons are at an angle below the critical angle, right. So, so here you're essentially in the total reflection regime. And so you only have evanescent wave scattering from the interfacial region. This is extremely weak. The intensity of the waves does decays exponentially through the surface. And this is done really well with x rays. But again because we have many many odds of magnitude fewer neutrons and the neutrons interact more weekly. This means that this evanescent wave is is actually a very weak. It gives a very weak signal and it's very difficult to get anything off this. So more often what we do is we do what we call near surface sands, which often is the bulk of what we call g sans most of the time. Here we bought our incoming neutrons at an angle that's a bit greater than the critical angle. Then we have a refractive way rate wave that is refracted into the surface, and is then scattered from a region below the interface. And then depending on how we set up the equipment we deter and what wave length we choose, then the penetration and scattering volume can be very. This is actually as I said the significant cause of background in reflectometry experiments and is most of what is measured as as off specular scattering as well. So how do we set up these measurements. Well basically what we have to do is we have to take now a pinhole beam. So we narrow the beam in the y direction. So we intentionally take a sands in sands beam, and we inclined it at a small angle, and put and pin it onto the surface of a sample, and then look at the reflected pattern. And now what we have is we have probing in one direction the qi space, which is in this direction in the other direction the reflectometry space. So essentially we can imagine that we have for a given instance we have a specular spot, which is where the direct beam goes, and everything else is off specular scattering either in the one plane or the other. The shape of this pattern, then tells us about the in plane structure. However, the analysis of this is not so simple. We have to deconvolute lots of geometry effects from the sample, and also then come up with a modeling regime to be able to model this, this structure. This can be rather challenging. In fact, the other thing to bear in mind is also that the penetration depth of neutrons is both angle dependent and wavelength dependent. And so by by changing that we, we can either use that to control what what part of the sample we're looking at, or we can just need to know it so that we know what part of the sample we're probing when we're doing our modeling and data analysis. Again, below the angle of total reflection only an evanescent wave penetrates the surface. And so here you can see, as we increase our wavelength, then we become going from being bulk sensitive to being surface sensitive, as we're also looking at different angles. And here's an example of how we can do this, particularly this is might be of interest at ESS using a high intensity time of flight polychromatic beam. We can get over some of the challenges that you face with monochromatic instruments, we will have many more neutrons, and we can make use of the time of flight information to probe multiple depths simultaneously. Here's an example of from the literature of using time of flight grazing instance scattering to look at polymer the structure of polymer nano dot films on the surface. And here, taking different wavelengths allowed to probe different parts of the structure. The real advantage here by for neutrons, because you might say well why can't we just do this with my microscopy or FM or something like this. Well, the answer is that is for looking at buried or magnetic interfaces right so if we have a surface that is a pattern surface underneath another surface then the penetration neutrons allows us to look at that. And we can make use of the magnetic interactions of the neutron to get magnetic information about the surface in plane as well as normal to it. Okay, so we've talked about how to measure smaller structures, how to measure surface structures, and both of these essentially required new types of instrument. Okay, sorry, I didn't there was a question from Jin Shan before I go on to the next one. So, in terms of the depth grade into hydrogen metals I would say it's it's most likely to be either reflectometry, all one of the neutron depth profiling methods that actually aren't so much scattering they rely on looking at things like depth sensitive gamma spectra and things like this. But, but there are good methods I think reflectometry might be a good choice if you can get sufficiently smooth surfaces to be able to measure and depending on whether you want to go beyond maybe 100 nanometers if you if you need deeper information and that becomes a grazing instance problem and then then it gets perhaps more difficult depending on the structure of the metal or alloy. Right. So, what I said before was that we needed specific, mostly specific instrumentation to measure those, those types of structures to measure time dependent structures are some things we can do just with existing sands instruments. But there are some examples where some we can get additional information if we can make designer instruments in a certain way. The simplest time is old sands on the second to minute timescale, or even the subsequent timescale these days is reasonably strong then we can do this with sequential methods so basically just starting off the reaction or the impetus or whatever we want to do to our sample and then just measuring time shots or in the case of event data recording event data over time and slicing it up afterwards into the time slots we want. And an example of of how one can do this is, for instance, this is these measurements that were made on lipid transfer between nano disks. And then what they did was they mixed some deuterated lipid nano disks and some protonated lipid nano disks in a ratio such that when the lipids were perfectly mixed, they would be contrast matched with the solvent. And so what happens over time is that the lipids transfer between the two populations. And so if you just measure the total scattered intensity as a function of time, you get a measure of how fast the lipids are moving back and forth. And as you can see this was done on time scales up to 10 seconds. And because we it was the winner we and because they were just counting total intensity, rather than having to look at the actual scattering pattern. This could get actually quite good. Good signal in short time measurements. As you can see, as we get up to biological towards biological temperatures, the rate becomes so fast that it becomes increasingly difficult to measure. And so here this is where having instruments that have more neutrons and have a setup to measure and even faster time scales would be useful. What you can do are to do things such as standard samples such as stops flow or flow through mixing. So in the case of stopped flow what you do is you rapidly mix in a chamber. And then you can take quick measurements and the mixing time determines the the time of your capture of the measurement. So here you have to do this over and over again in order to build up enough statistics but you can measure whole scattering curves. And so here these were 50 to 100 millisecond measurements that were repeated up to 25 times in order to get enough statistics, but still then using this method you could look at the structural transition of, in this case, mixing two surfactants. So they went from a disk to a physical structure. Another option is if you want to look at reactive systems is to use flow through mixing. Here basically you start them reacting and they pass along a small capillary. And because they're reacting as time goes by, where you look at the sample as it's flowing through also corresponds to reaction time. So if you look close to the mixing chamber, then what you're looking at is short reaction times. If you're looking further away you're looking at longer reaction times and the flow rate can be used to also control exactly where in the reaction time you're looking at. And so these these types of methods can be used to look at short time scale measurements without having to modify the instrument itself you're just changing in both cases here the sample environment you put on the instrument. Another way to do this is for instance to do stroboscopic type measurements where and these are often used with a share so you'll put a rheometer or share cell into the instrument and you will then do put your sample under some sort of share field, stop the share, let it relax and take measurements and you have a triggering system whereby the cycle of the rheometer is linked up to the data collection on the sands instrument. And so you can then again just go through this cycle repeatedly and build up the statistics based upon where exactly in this relaxation curve or excitation curve you were. And this is shown as an example for share but one can do it things like with UV illumination, for instance for light switchable surfactants or polymers. You can turn on a light turn off a light, you can apply electric fields or magnetic fields in similar ways. And look at the response of your system to this by repeatedly going up of course this only works if you have a reversible change and you're interested in that reversibility. However, the minimum time scale that you can measure is limited by the range of wavelengths you have and in the case of a time of flight instrument is limited by the pulse length which gives the range of wavelengths you have. And so there's a for a typical continuous source sands instrument, you have a resolution for these type of cyclical measurements of something on the order of about 50 milliseconds. And so if we. So this is basically just limited by the time it takes different neutron wavelengths to get to the same point on the detector. There was this method invented by Roland Gayler at ILL which he called to san, which is sands for time involved small angle neutron experiments, but also is very similar to the Swedish word for a herbal infusion. Dear me, I'm in the wrong country. And what you do here though is actually you put a chopper at the source, and then you synchronize the chopper with what you're doing to your sample. And what this then means is that neutrons that arrive at the same time were actually scattered at the same time in the sample response curve. It's rather complicated. And actually this type of method to a limited extent can be done automatically at a time of flight instrument because you know when any given wavelength past to the sample because you know where it was at any given time so if you know that the neutron reached your detector at X time, and you know when it started, you know when you sample and so you can know, then find out what state your sample was in when say 10 Armstrong neutrons went through. And this is more or less the same, but with significantly more flexibility in the fact that you can get very high frequencies out of this that you can't get out of a time of flight source. So this technique is available at the ILL and NCNR, and has mostly been applied so far to things like the behavior of ferrofluids, the type of fluids that are used in these fancy adjustable dampers for for expensive cars where by changing the magnetic field you can change the viscosity of the real the real logical properties and the viscosity of the ferrofluid and change its dampener but understanding the critical behavior of these has been done, primarily using reosans. So using to saying there haven't been many other examples of using this because it is generally focused on very high frequency effects. All right, so. So now we've spoken about how we can do time resolve measurements. I want to go on to perhaps what is the most different method so far all of the things we've done look like sands instruments one way or another. This example now where we measure in real space. I'm going to talk now about a technique called spin echo sands. All right, so the ability of a regular pinhole sands instrument allows us to measure in the nanometer to 500 nanometer regime, and we have relatively long instruments and we measure in reciprocal space. So the technique of spin echo sands, which I'll describe in a moment makes you is is able to measure from something like 30 or so nanometers, but goes up well into the range that we're talking about with you sands at 20 micrometers. So much more compact and importantly, one of the things they do is that they give you a scattering curve that is related directly to real space distances is not in reciprocal space.  All right, so you'll have, you know that some neutrons are affected by magnetic fields. What happens is, is that when we pass them when they travel through a magnetic field, they start to undergo procession. And so, as the neutron passes through the field, it spin starts to process. And so it presented it. So if we have a positive field and a negative field that are essentially the same length and the same field strength. So if we pass them through, we'll process one way and then we'll process back the other way by exactly the same amount. And so the procession the amount of procession is proportional to the field strength and the distance. What we do in small angle scattering, because we don't have a direct single linear beam is we actually use these trapezoidal parallelogram shaped fields. And what we see is if we send one neutron through, it goes through that much, and then it processes back. And it's completely unchanged on the other end, because the unscathed beam gives us this what we call spin echo of zero the angular the difference in the spin between the start and the end condition is zero. And this is independent of height and angle, because of the shape of these beans. If we now put a sample in the beam. And it will now have a different path length in the second magnetic field from in the first one. And so it will come through with a different spin state at the end, then it started with.  This gives us a very high resolution, even with a divergent beam. So we're sensitive to scattering at about three micro radians, which is, as I mentioned before, similar to the type of precision we can get from a Bonser heart type use and instrument. And so this is now a still Fourier transform scattering, but a different for a transform and gives us the density correlation function. So here we now have a decay curve that is related to the size of the particles. So where the becomes flat is now directly related to the size of the particles. So in this case, we can effectively read off the scale, how big our particles are. So the instrument looks like this, we have a polarizer to polarize our neutron beam to get everything in the same spin state. To start with, we have a magnet to do the field. We have a field stepper to control the field. We have guide fields when they have an analyzer to analyze the spin state when it comes out and a detector. So how does this relate to normal sands? And so essentially, in all cases, what we start with is we start with the distribution of density, a row of R. And in the case of regular sands, we have the square of the amplitude of the Fourier transform, and we end up with intensity as a function of q here. And in C sands, what we have is we have the able correlation function actually goes here, and we end up with what's known as G of Z, which is the C sands function. And they're both related then by their respective transforms to gamma of R, which is the pair distance distribution function, which is the actual real space information. However, here the C sands uses this spin echo length, which means that it is in fact working in real space, real space length, rather than a inverse space length. This technique can be very valuable in cases where you have very dense systems where multiple scattering can be a real problem for C sands techniques. All of our analysis assumes that neutrons are only scattered once when they pass through a sample. If they're scattered more than once in significant quantities, then that can change the scattering curve in a way that's difficult to analyze, or possibly impossible. And so C sands, it can be used often for systems that are subject to multiple scattering that will cause problems for a sands experiment. All of this analysis can actually has been built now into SAS view. So in SAS view you can analyze both sands and C sands in data using the same models. So that may has made life a lot easier for people who want to do C sands experiments. The places you can do this are at the University of Delft reactor where this was invented, and also at ISIS, where the University of Delft group contributed to building two instruments of spec and Larmor, which make use of this method. All right, the last method I want to talk to is about doing Sands with an imaging instrument. And so in Sands what we do is we take a very collimated beam, we pass it through the sample and we look at scattering. In imaging what we do is we take a very divergent beam, shine it on our sample and look at basically take an image on the detector of what has happened to the intensity of the neutrons. It's possible to set up a set of gratings, interference gratings doing what is known as dark field imaging, where essentially by having at these diffraction gratings, we can now and moving them around. We can now do position sensitive small angle scattering of our sample using an imaging detector. And this can allow you for instance to look at the distribution of small angle scattering within your sample which can tell you about the distribution of the nanometer to micrometer length scale structure within a sample. And can be a very powerful technique for certain types of problem. Right, so that overview was really just make you aware of the fact that there are a whole bunch of methods that exist to extend the traditional pinhole Sands measurements to look at structure on much longer length scales short to short time scales and to look at surfaces. These are generally more specialist I mean I said that basically everyone has a Sands instrument at their facility. These types of instruments are very few and far between and require generally much more specialist support and planning than a normal Sands instrument. But if you have the right samples, these can be very powerful and unique methods for obtaining structural information about. So, I'm happy to have any questions. So, what are these time resolved measurements? Yeah. Well, if we do this measurement in the reaction at the process itself, it's like ours. So, what would be optimal. So, so, so long time reaction so long time reactions like that are actually very easy to measure depending on on whether you need very high resolution time in the early phases that say, unless time resolution later. It's very variable but essentially if you went to an instrument that does event mode recording you could just start counting data and measure for the full hour or so. You could choose to slice up the data when you process it into whatever time slices you wanted. Otherwise, if you don't need very tight resolution if you only need say several seconds resolution, you can just make lots and lots of measurements one after the other while the reaction is happening. And that that works fine I've done that on on samples a lot. But it does really mean you need to know a little bit about the reaction rate in upfront to have an idea about what measurement times you should use. Of course you can always measure with very short measurement times now the data together afterwards but that's generally more of a pain and then getting it a little bit optimized style. But those those sort of long times are actually very straightforward to do on a regular science. The reasons we try to sync with on the in-situ diffraction measurement when we charge some metal sample with hydrogen in the beginning so quite fast. I mean, within some minutes, you reach almost a steady state level but then it will take a long time to realize the saturation but I don't know what's optimal. If you want just to follow the very initial period, maybe you have to measure quickly. So so so depending on how quickly quickly is then then measuring on a high intensity, the highest intensity beam you can get with an event recording instrument would give you the best possible time resolution that you could you could choose to have. Another thing you can always do with things that then take a long time to equilibrate is you can wait in between so most instruments have sample changes right so so you can measure measure a sample and then switch to the next one and just, you know, alternate between them looking at at intervals in time you don't have to just keep measuring for those longtime equilibration type measurements. You know you may maybe make some different measurements on some of the samples while the other ones are collaborating over time. So there are there are there are ways to optimize the measurement time that doesn't mean sitting counting for hours on something that isn't isn't changing that fast. But yeah always talk to an instrument scientist they're there they used to those type of measurements very much. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Any other questions. Maybe I missed that you said this, but I was wondering about like spin echo sense. Yes, what kind of systems that would be particularly useful for compared to like regular sense. So the, in general, it's anything where you would want to. So CSANs and UCANs more or less cover the same size range. So, so things like emulsions gels with large scale structure. Geological samples and alloys where you're looking at grain size structure grain structure things like that. You have these very large structures that that can't be measured with regular small angle scattering. And then with CSANs. Depending on the setup you have it can be less sensitive to this multiple scattering problem. So as you increase the size of particles obviously the scattering intensity goes up very rapidly, and you increase the scattering probability. So if it increases then you know you have more and more multiple scattering. And so you get the point where the scattering signal is too strong. So often for you sense measurements we actually have to really dial the contrast down to a level where we can actually make the measurement reliably CSANs is less susceptible to that. And actually CSANs has been used a lot to study things like biological emotions like milk cheese dairy products, and so on. I did some CSANs to look at the structure of very concentrated emulsions and densely packed mixtures of spheres and things like this, we're looking interested in binary sphere mixing. So in general anything where there's length scale structure on those length scales. One nice thing that is now being done on the Larmor instrument at ISIS is that you can do simultaneous sands and CSANs. So they have a setup whereby the CSANs is actually just measured in the beam stop. So you have the center of beam stop measures the CSANs pattern, and then you measure sands all around it. So you can actually on the same sample measure all the way from a few nanometers up to 10 microns. And that's particularly interesting if you have, for instance, structure that's evolving with time. So one of the disadvantages of either CSANs on its own or USANs on its own is the fact that they're much slower. Well CSANs is actually quite fast because it uses the direct beam as well compared to USANs which is slow because it uses a collimated beam. Whereas CSANs can use an uncollimated beam. But normally you would have to move your sample from one to the other. But if you're actually interested in the evolution of structure over time where maybe it's a growth, a nucleation and growth phenomenon or something like this. Then you can look at that with sands plus CSANs. I can think of an example where maybe, for instance, if you're interested in pickering emulsions, right, in particle stabilized emulsions, maybe you're interested in what's happening to the density or amount of stabilizer at the interface over time. And you started off with a very fine emulsion and it's ripening over time. You can look at how that ripening is occurring and look at the distribution of the stabilizer by using contrast variation. But many of these things are things that you would say, well, I can just do that by mostly looking at it. And in fact, whenever people said they wanted to do USANs experiments, one of the things I've asked them is, have you measured it with every other possible technique first? Because this is going to be a real pain to do, including staring at it very hard. Sometimes the eye is great. Exactly, yes. I mean, looking at just how the cloudiness is something you're changing or its turbidity will tell you an awful lot before you even need to do scattering. So it's those type of systems. Systems that aren't necessarily amenable to light scattering is usually the ones that are of the interests where you have very dense opaque systems. Yeah, when neutrons then also are extra helpful maybe. Exactly, yes, exactly. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Well, thank you everybody. I hope you have a good rest of the day and I'll see you in the next couple of days.


Hey there friends, thanks for checking in Michigan the Great Lakes State is attempting to Mimic California with the gun legislation. They want more gun control now I've heard people in the past say you know Michigan has good gun laws I will tell you something there is no such thing as a good gun law they're either extremely restricted or Something you can live with and for me. It's always been something I could live with I didn't like it I didn't like half the hoops. I had to jump through but I always felt like I could live with it and It was never a problem But then some psycho Goes at the Michigan State and starts shooting up the place now. They say we we need to prevent That from ever happening again And so they campaigned and said hey, we're going to save lives the Democrats Every time I hear well, it's not a the Republican or a Democrat issue. No, it's a Democrat issue It's number one on their agenda with everything going on in this state with horrible inflation and economy That's sinking housing prices are sinking crimes up defund the police the roads are terrible. I go into other states The roads are fine There they're a lot better around here. It's like driving on the moon You know you just bump all over the place cause the damage to the vehicles and what do they do?  He had a gun conviction Supposed to be a felony They pled it down to a misdemeanor served a little bit of time on probation Grabbed himself a couple nine millimeters went on a shooting spree in Michigan State. It was horrible Why did he reduce the penalty? And now they blame you and me for owning guns and we're the problem because of this maniac Meanwhile, it's a gun-free zone. I blame the administration at Michigan State for doing absolutely nothing to Prevent this from happening or protect their students And I know that's a tough claim, but when you make something a gun-free zone That's essentially the environment you're putting innocent people in So the Democrats want to save our lives. They want to do this in three phases now the first phase is Safe storage laws now. I agree fire up should be safely stored, but I don't need the government tell me how to do it I don't see that in the Second Amendment They're also saying they want Universal background checks for all firearm transfers, whether it's from a purchase at a gun store or Person-to-person transfers Universal background checks across the board and they want the dreaded red flag laws.  They're drunk Well, we have officers on the street as soon as that crime is committed will be all over it They're not gonna be all over it You don't see them going confiscating somebody's keys and their vehicle and anything like that They wait till the crime is committed, but now with the red flag loss an anonymous tip could be a Angry family member could be a neighbor who hates you could be somebody you work with who is mad because you got the promotion And they didn't so they stay in the shadows Meanwhile the gun owner pays thousands of dollars and waits several years to finally get their day in court to clear their name and If it turns out that they were innocent all along because the crime's never been committed these Upstanding people in the community I'm sure many cases a lot of angry people would love to make that anonymous tip Then they get their firearms back after a lengthy process and they're calling that due process that's not due process and People have gotten killed in this country because of red flag laws because they refuse to surrender their firearms And mistakes are made all the time So Michigan wants to do that they want to they want to champion and they're doing this or saying we want to save lives Now why are they doing this? Well, the Democrats campaigned on it It's all you know, it's the Democrats who are weak on crime They want to defund the police and they want stricter gun laws and leave you defenseless It's like that every time this is no bipartisan issue. Nobody wants to take your guns Yes, they do. They say we want common sense common sense gun laws. That's what we want just common sense It's all common sense. No, it's not common sense. I'll tell you what's common sense protect The citizens with armed people who are in that environment at the time that's common sense You know the armed citizen saves more lives than law enforcement happens every day never gets reported but that would be phase one phase two is they want a 14-day waiting period They call that a cooling off period, you know, I'm really mad.  Give me 14 days Think about how dangerous that is imagine a young lady who's living in an apartment a couple predators move in next door And they start threatening her and everything she feels like she needs to protect herself with a firearm because getting pretty dangerous Call the police, but they're they show up and say look I talked to them. They're fine.  You have to wait 14 days. That's like a death sentence Then they want magazine capacity capacity restrictions only, you know reduce the clips reduce the size of the clips That's what's dangerous. How in the world are you gonna stop the criminals from having those? Somebody please explain that to me. Well, once they make it illegal, they'll be fewer to go around. Nope doesn't work that way nice try Democrats run on emotion and they take advantage of the emotion with the fake polls that they've been putting out there The polls say oh 80% of the people agree at this we even pulled gun owners They agree with it like they said in the poll Let me tell you something you can get the outcome that you want to achieve by the way you word any poll You can get whatever you want 80% of gun owners agree at this. No, they don't and People say well, we have good gun laws. We don't have good gun laws. There's no such thing We have more restrict more restrictions that is gonna make this place look like California and then to top it off They want to ban What they call assault rifles now we see this across the country. They say well because of the Michigan State Shooter We need to ban assault rifles. Well the Michigan State Shooter use two nine millimeters All right, they didn't use rifle the two nine millimeters and yet Michigan with all of their brilliance and the Democrats who campaign on it. They're gonna keep us safe They're going to ban assault rifles America's rifle modern sporting firearm and They're going to do that to keep us safe. I'm telling you this place is is going to hell in a handbasket I'm some sick of living here instead of tackling inflation in the economy and the sinking housing and everything else taxes they want gun control and Here they are front and center saying we told you it's time to act with common sense Well, their common sense makes no sense to me and I'm telling you right now The more we all we have to do is just look at some of the other states the more gun control imposed the higher crime goes happens everywhere and I don't you don't need to hear me talk about all the examples But it is everywhere and it really is a disgrace. So Craig congratulations, Michigan You wanted mail-in voting tells me there'll never be a Republican in that state office again you wanted Democrats the ones who have double-digit inflation and want to raise your taxes You wanted to believe when they said nobody was going to come after your guns and here they are Right there with their arms wide open saying we're coming after your guns There will be very Little compliance on that front. I appreciate you watching and you guys be safe


and welcome to Grimmans. The only morning show where we answer your questions about the Halo-based web series, Red vs. Blue. I'm Simmons. And he's Griff. Stick to your teleprompter. Let's get to our first question. This one's from the old World Wide Web. So you know it's gonna be good. One fish, two fish, red fish versus blue fish asked, just finished season 13, should I watch seasons 14 to 18? Now, that's actually a very good question. Wait, wait. What? It's a great question. And I have a lot of thoughts on this, actually. You see, saying goodbye can be really hard sometimes. What is that, Font? Sometimes you nail an ending to a beloved, albeit niche, series, only to find that you've actually got a little bit of gas left in the tank. So why not take another lap around the block, five or 10 or even a thousand more times? Griff, what font is that? I don't know. I think it's called Gil Sands. There wasn't a Griff font. That is not the font we picked out together. It's supposed to be Garamond. You can't just change the font mid-broadcast. Whatever, Garamond is so boring. It's Garamond and it's professional. Oh my God, I don't even care. It's just a font.  And there it is. I knew you didn't want to do Q&A. Uh, yeah, because I've been talking about getting us an animal wrangler for weeks. Oh, that's so cliche. Ooh, animals. Uh-oh, now it's on your shoulder. So wacky. This is supposed to be hard-hitting, cutting-edge, playful morning Q&As. And how else are we ever gonna meet a real-life Puma? Ha, Simmons. Go to the zoo or make your own morning show. I don't want to go to a zoo, Simmons. They smell horrible. And I didn't want to make my own morning show. I wanted to make one with you. GilSans is fine. No, we can change it to Garamond. Whatever, I don't care. It does look nice. It's hard to go wrong with the serif. Well, unfortunately, our producers flashing the rapid up light, so that's gonna do it for all of us here at Grimmons. Thank you to One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, versus Blue Fish for the insightful question.  Have a great morning and an even better day.


So EA put 10 foot tall players into the game. And now normally, in years past, when EA puts these gigantic, completely broken cards in the game, it's only for offline use.  If I wanted to play with a huge player offline, I could do that in franchise. But they made an exception this year. There's a house rules mode called Field of Fear. In Field of Fear, you will play with always-on X-Factors and Monster Morphs will be in effect. Monster Morphs is when the players are gigantic. Now you'll also see a follow-up to this video because the Monster Morphs can work in three different ways. First, they utilize one of three different strategy items. There's Towering Terror, which is what I have currently activated. That adds height and catching to all most feared players. However, they lose agility and power. I additionally could go Monsterous Might, which is plus strength and power, but you lose agility and acceleration. This is generally considered to be the worst one. Don't use this. And another one that is insanely good, but not today's video, is scary speed. It adds speed and running abilities to all your players, but they lose size and strength. Let me give you an example. Since we have Towering Terror on right now and we have the tallest wide receiver to ever play the game, Harold Carmichael, let me show you what this card looks like. Going over to his attributes, he's seven foot six. Now the game does say he's seven foot six here. I think in real life he was six foot nine, something like that. However, when you see him in game, it is clear to me that he's not seven foot six. He's something more like 10 or 11 or 12 feet. I don't know how the scaling works. I don't know how to develop video games. Obviously that's why I just play them, but these players end up being 10, 11, 12 feet when they're out there. So he's 90 speed. He has minus 10 agility, minus 20 stamina, right? So they're gonna get winded, but he does have 99 catch, 99 catching traffic, 99 jump, 99 spectacular catch. So he's basically a cheat code as a wide receiver and you're about to see a lot more of that now, but it's not all funny games.  You're saying to yourself, what is stamina matter? You know, it's just a house rules game mode. This is actually a really important factor for your defense.  So every single most feared card this applies to. My car, Michael is gigantic. My gear of bowls is gigantic. Ryan Jensen is gigantic. Mike is sicky. He's incredible. He's gigantic as well. Debo Samuel's huge. Kurt Cousins is huge. Derek Henry is huge. Even Hollywood Brown. Then I defense. I've got Roquan Smith, CJ Gardner Johnson, Aiden Hutchinson, and Shaquille Griffin. And now that I look at that, I wanna add some players. I might be not a whole video for you guys.  I have heard insanely good things about this Derwent James. So right now he's 91 speed, 91 Excel, already probably the best strong safety user in the game. And he's six foot two. So if I had him on my team, he's gonna be like seven foot one and a user. And I could probably give him lurker. I don't even know if that would help at that point. Being a strong safety and seven foot one.  Dude, I almost prestigeed Derwent James in wheel of mud too. Kinda makes me sad. It's always on X factors, right? So I can give him avalanche and just ruin people's day. So that's good news. Let's go enforcer avalanche. I feel like it'll be easier for me to get the avalanche hit sticks.  Cause they're actually slow. Like they actually will get torched. You know, I gotta make a heater for the boys, right? Let's also get 92 Julius Peppers. So one end will be 10 foot tall Aiden Hutchinson. The other end will be 10 foot tall Julius Peppers. Who's already six foot seven, just like Aiden Hutchinson. So they're both gonna be gigantic. Let's get the best team overall in and hop into this game. I know you guys want to see the game play. So I won't waste any more of your time. So for abilities on defense, since they're always activated, let's go avalanche German James, unstoppable force Aiden Hutchinson.  And I can throw lurker on Roquan Smith just in case I switch to a 4-3. Not bad. And then offensively giving double me and deep out elite to Harold Carmichael is like, that's the definition of overkill, but I'm still gonna do it. And now I do have some options though. I could go freight train Derek Henry. They think he's so big, he'll probably just do his thing anyway. I don't feel like I need freight train. Mike Gasicki with double me. That's gonna be super good. I am gonna give dots to Kirk Cousins. I'll be the first person to tell you, I do not understand this ability. So dots is an ability that grants perfect passing on any throw. So why would I ever use a run and gun which grants perfect passing while running? There needs to be a button on abilities that says view more info. And they actually like outline for you exactly how it operates. Cause I'm sure like if I tested it, I could figure this out.  I wanna throw bombs to Harold Carmichael. Okay?  Either way, I'm gonna use it.  I've got double me Carmichael dots Kirk Cousins. And let's go double me Debo.  So I want Debo to have an ability. Mike Gasicki will just hang out. He'll just be a big boy as is. And stay tuned. Of course, I'm gonna do the shortest possible team. Get ready for that, baby. So in the field of fear game mode, the game ends if you lead by 16 points. Otherwise it goes all the way to the end. You start in the third quarter, three minutes.  So behind Kirk Cousins and in front of Derek Henry, who's literally getting dwarfed, that's Christian Okoye. One of the most massive fullbacks to ever play. Like, like look at Carmichael.  Right, if you get a penalty, you get kicked. Also a huge thank you to one of my all time favorite sponsors, Roman Swipes. You might be asking yourself, what is a Roman Swipe?  What do you mean by that? Seriously, I'll rate it straight off the package. Roman Swipes are designed to reduce over stimulation without eliminating sensation altogether.  First, you take a Roman Swipe. This little guy, not the only time you'll be saying that. Take it out of the package, swipe it on the tip, you know? And that's literally it. Absolute game changer. Keep one in your wallet at all times. You will thank me later. Here's what you gotta do. Go to gitroman.com forward slash MMG to get $10 off your first order of Roman Swipes. Plus free two-day shipping. Again, just click the link in the top of the description. $10 off your order and free two-day shipping and enjoy the rest of the video. Look at Julius Peppersbow. The game says he's seven foot six. Tell me why he looks like he's 14 feet tall. Oh, Carter Johnson. Big Justin Fields. I didn't know there was.  He's going up, he's going up. Oh, he's out of bounds. All right, Peppers. I guess you're my user now. I don't know how Aiden Hutchinson isn't in. Easy. It's too, oh, give it to Peppers. Let's go, big boy! All right, this should be an easy dub for us.  What are you doing, man? Ha, ha, ha, ha. At least double team the guy. And he's not double team the car. My God, I guess he just likes getting scored on. An actual homo sapien. Homo erectus, okay? I took an anthropology class.  I'm going to go with a zig route here. He's manning me up. I'm actually getting boxed. Yeah, I got boxed. Derwin stepping up. Oh, he's even one, Gardner Johnson. 10 foot tall hutch here and then big boy Derwin James in the middle. I can tell though how slow Derwin James is because of how tall he is. He's not very fluid like I'm used to with the user, but what does it matter when you live in the backfield? Fourth and 31. He does have double me Ditka, but he's not even getting the ball. Oh, he is getting the ball off. Sorry, but my 80 foot tall Gardner Johnson is going to take that. Dude, why are you not guarding him?  Still got the moves. This is a very unorthodox play call. No bigger go home, baby. Let's see it, Debo. Shit. Wait, pull him out, pull him out. One yard line, one yard line. Shit. Ooh, he goes with a handoff. Big head, the Justin Fields. That was perfect though. Look at this, he's about to get sacked again. He is going to get sacked again. Please bro, I'm asking you nicely, please adjust. Oh, he got it off. He got it off, let's go. That Gardner Johnson is nasty. Debo looks dummy open. All right, Debo. All right, Debo. All right, Debo.  All right, Max protects. And then let's hit De- Oh, let's go, snap it now, snap it now. Snap it now, he's out of position. Here we go, step up Kirk, heave it. Let's go, let's go. In this game, old bro, you can't just go for the first down.  That's his second one.  If I don't play the game one second left, I have to get two touchdowns, right? I don't know though, man. We got to get Kirk Cousins out of here.  All right, I want to rethink quarterback. Corjosh Allen still has a really good release. So let's use him. I'm going to run Brick Wall. Brick's the first sack wall in the pocket. Okay, is he running the ball? Please, please. I want to have a lanch hit stick to start us out. Shit, that play action got me so good. Delpit's got it even better, baby. Pitch it, pitch it, pitch it.  One more time. Wait, who's back there? Who's back there? Oh, he's got it. Let's go. Here we go. We're going to hit him with the play action. He sees big boy Derek Henry. All right, we're just going to scramble.  Let's go, Carmichael.  Dude, I kind of want to try this ability though. I break the first sack no matter what. Like I'm just going to try and get sacked. I'm going to try and get sacked here. What happens? So how is that breaking the first sack? We're just going to do a little experiment here. A little madden science. OK, come here, peppers.  What is it? If it's a user, I get sacked, actually. Going to block a sickie and Henry. Hopefully Hollywood will take the middle safety. And that puts Carmichael in single coverage. And there's a really low chance you're going to be able to stop them.  He literally just put his hand up. Now, Derwin James, just do your thing. I'll throw it underneath. Oh my goodness. Your poverty, bro. We're not real. Oh, we could be fast enough, actually. I was trying to hard cut guys, and I didn't even need to. Well, that's enough. I want some comp, baby. I want a back and forth. What's he got? Sauce Gardner with, oh my god. I've never seen someone run that ability. He's actually running the ankle breaker ability. I think you break tackles. Wait, wait, wait.   Nothing. I can't say I'm too concerned about it. Dude, the combined pressure of Julius Peppers and Hutchinson, both with unstoppable force, is not fair at all. In fact, I should have put under pressure on both of them, which would be even more broken. But oh my god, that's a fumble? How?  Let's wait until someone comes into frame. I want to see a little guy come into frame. Oh, little guy.  I saw brick wall on Josh Allen. You know what? It doesn't even matter. What do I care? I'll run brick wall on Josh Allen. Ooh, I'm going QB draw. Snap it, take off, edge. Nope. Dude, run a different play. Didn't you catch on that this isn't working? Just kidding. He's got nothing. He knows he's got nothing. Come on, oh, he fumbled again. All right, Chase Young. Can I hit him with a play action? Doesn't look like he bit, but it also doesn't look like it mattered. Carmichael outran him. Like, this is supposed to be the giant.  We're going Debo. Debo's getting no love. I feel bad. Uh-oh. Hat back throw, hat back throw.  I really like this Derwin, dude. This Derwin is nasty. Sorry, man. Rokwan Smith with Lurker. Did you see what they expect a little? If you put Lurker on players and you're not using them, they'll still animate as if they have Lurker. And that's a W. All right, let's take this seriously. Yeah, let's go Bazooka, Josh Allen. DJ Shark would double me and plunk it with dots. OK, smells definitely passing. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Nice move. Man, that movement was clean.  I can't get to it. Nice play. All right, boys, we might have a game here. This is what I've been looking for. Carmichael? No, let's touch on. Really requires no skill. Hat back. Yep. Oh, avalanche, avalanche, avalanche. Shit. OK. Damn, we're too slow. Gardner Johnson entourage. Let's go, boys. Throw some blocks. Look at this route. Tell me that's not going to do it. Come on. Hold those blocks, boys. Oh, we got it on. All right, we're going to go cover two. Oh, the corner routes there. Whoa. Nice. Fine. Oh, he made adjustments. He's in a different defense to the play action. OK. Oh, sorry, sir. But that's a toddy. Got him. Oh, great play.  Dude, switched on, made a monster play.  All right, let's play some defense, boys. Could be a run. Nope. All right, well, we got the ball back. Can't argue with that. I didn't get that. Oh, I did. What are you trying to do there, Shaq? All right, I'm going to do this again, except I'm actually going to loft the ball this time. Big boy. Henry, bro. They're peeling. Car. We know he wants to go DJ Chark. All right. Oh, oh, pitch it, pitch it, pitch it, pitch it, pitch it. All right, one more touchdown for the boys. Go, Debo. Go, Debo. Go, Debo. Wait a second. Go, Debo. Oh, darn it. You guys have seen a lot of the wide receivers, right? Let's go throw freight train on Derek Henry. Let's use that a little bit. Starting out on defense, he's got Michael Vick and Megatron with double me.  I got to go cover his Megatron. I kind of got to double up Megatron. Shit, I'm not on Megatron. Oh, I'm fucked. He's going to throw Megatron. OK, that's fine. That's not a good ball. Poor accuracy bullet pass. Why is Josh Allen throwing such bad balls? Oh, no, I'm going to get scored on. I can't reach that.  I knew it was a run. I didn't think it was an RPO. OK, we got one off to Carmichael. I'm saying too easy, like I'm talented or something right now, bro. He's got a lot of abilities in there. I don't know about this. Fuck. Oh, I got that. Burst of 15. I'm going Wildcat Derek Henry. OK, I love those blocks. Same thing. Keep them mixed up. Keep them mixed up.  Come on, baby. Fourth and two. Dude, he's sending the entire squad. Come on, bite, bite, bite, bite, bite, bite. Counter up the middle. Oh, too many Steelers. Narnit. I had a good time, though. All he has on Vic is trust, bro. He has trust on. I love this playbook, though. It's so sick. Hell of a run, Jerome Bettis. I did.  You can't be mad about that. That was fire. I'm scared of the quarterback. Ooh, the RPO. Wide open. I think Debo's there. We have to get this, though. He can chew the clock if I don't get this. I think Debo instantly is there. Carmichael, easy.  He's chewing it. I would be too. Get there. Great defense. Great defense. He should throw Megatron. Be perfect karma here. That's what I would do. I'll throw Megatron and get the double means. The only way I've been able to score. He's not fast enough to return it, but he is lurked. 30 seconds on the clock. No field goals allowed in this game mode. We just have to get it right now. I'm just going to go Carmichael on the edge. Beauty. Get out of bounds. Oh, there's a flag. I might just go Carmichael. I'm going Carmichael. Come on, buddy.  Game, this is Ben. I'm giving it one more wildcat, too. All right, he's got 14 seconds and no timeouts to get in the end zone. One more big boy. Shit. Megatron, Megatron. Oh, Jesus, he almost got that. All right, I'm with you, Megatron. I'm here. OK. Incredibly questionable play call. He was lights out amazing play calls until we're right there. He's got first one free Patterson, and he's going to run it to him right out the gates, and he's going to get clothes lined. Yeah, I know you want to throw an interception.  Every time I go to Avalanche, I get so excited, so tense that I can't make the tackle. Listen, I'm still undefeated right now, so I don't care what these dudes are doing. You're scared. Mine. Super tall, super slow, there when James doesn't pick that. I'm going to try and kind of clear the safeties out here. This is cover two, right? So it can only guard so many.  Oh, wow. That's just so fucked. Go, Gisicky. Go, big boy. Go, big boy. Hard game, hard life. Wow, he's chewing clock. OK, buddy. OK.  Let him in. Oh, no, we can't let him in. Nobody can get there. Bam. Well, we have to stop him here or we lose. It is. And we're there this time. And we're there this time. Still a ball game. I hit the wrong button. I try to throw that to Carmichael. I hit the wrong button.   If I was better, I would have just stopped him, right? All right, I want to feel good again. So I'm just going to do this. Oh, just kidding. Now I'm rusty. I just, I just instantly rusted myself. Ah. Run play action again. Please, I want to sack you again. Shit, this is bad. This is bad. I'm in trouble. Oh. Oh, he's on his feet. That was an avalanche hit stick. All right, whatever. Go, peppers. Shit, guys. Oh, he's on a ball. That's my ball. Sorry, man. I'm sorry. That sucked. What did I give this ability to Derek Catterford if I'm not going to use him, right? Hey, let's go use him. I'm sorry. Keep saying it, but why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just do this every single time?  I want to do it again.  All right, we got him. We got him. Yeah, you're too scared. You're too scared to see what would happen. No, shh, I'm getting walked down, dude. When things aren't going well, you know what you do. You take a look at Carmichael. And you don't care that the user is over there. You don't care he's got Ray Nitchkey. You're Hero Carmichael. I'm just going on the QB. Let's go. Get to him. Oh, I don't really, oh, wait. We know it's a pass. We know it's play action. Just go get to the quarterback. Oh, I'm on this. I'm on this. Oh no, oh no, no, we stopped Carmichael. All right, boys, I got to end it up there. That was crazy. I hope you guys enjoyed. And if you love this video, which I hope you did, I'm going to do the exact same thing except with the shortest players. So all I got to do is change out the strategy item, but I can still run the same squad. And I think Derek Henry is going to be insane. I love you boys. Thanks for watching as always. I'll see you in the next one. Peace.