Results for February's project

Thanks to everyone who responded. There were six genuine voters and two virtual voters. Analysing the responses was not as straightforward as I had expected.

Kate voted for option 3. Kate's cat also voted for option 3 but I suspect this was just Kate's way of trying to wangle some extra representation and so I'm accepting only the one vote (sorry Kate's cat).

Cosmic Tink Tank voted for option 3 and included some interesting suggestions to enliven the proceedings. I won't be using the suggestions but, hey, what a creative mind.

Mille Vache voted for option 2, which I would have been delighted to run with but unfortunately Mille rendered option 2 redundant by publishing the recipe in advance of project selection and execution. Never mind - it was a good service rendered by Mille and I trust everyone will try the recipe (I certainly will).

Angie voted for option 2 but see Mille Vache above. Sorry Angie. At least you've got the recipe now.

Andrew voted for option 2. Yep, that's right. Sorry Andrew. Blame Mille Vache. Enjoy the honeycomb!

Su voted for option 1. I am counting this vote as valid even though I know for a fact that Su is voting that way only to try to put me on the spot. You don't believe I can do this number theory stuff, do you Su? I have only one thing to say: Tom Westerdale, Birkbeck College. He taught me everything I know about number theory, set theory, logic and computability. Although I'm a wee bit rusty, I've still got my notes...

Anonymous voted for option 1 but then disqualified himself/herself by voting twice for option 1. A bit harsh maybe but Anonymous could be anyone - perhaps even Su trying to inflate her representation. Anonymous did almost redeem himself/herself by suggesting that option 3 would be more fun but, in all fairness, if I'm invalidating this person's vote for option 1 then I must do the same for option 3.

So there we have it:

Option 1: one valid vote (Su).
Option 2: three valid votes (Mille Vache, Angie, Andrew) but option rendered redundant by early disclosure.
Option 3: two valid votes (Kate, Cosmic Tink Tank).

A clear win for option 3. I kind of thought it would go that way.

And here you are - the very can that's going to get it. The contents conform to European directives 76/769/EEC and CE 3093/94. I'm not saying that's good and I'm not saying that's bad but one way or another it will do no more harm to the environment than if it were deployed more conventionally, at a party for instance. The only difference is that my special party will be over in seconds. The only way to reduce impact is to ban this stuff altogether and that would probably be a good thing.

When is it going to happen? Well, I had planned on doing the deed later today but a friend of mine offered the use of his professional quality video camera in place of my humble mobile phone video capture facility. I must admit I couldn't resist the opportunity to capture some high-speed vid and render it in slow-mo for your delectation.

Do not try this at home. See you in March!

Your chance to vote on February's project

February has been a slow month for the Secret Laboratory. I have several serious projects on the go but there will not be any results until late March at the earliest. Therefore, as infill, I have decided to test the intellectual orientation of my readership. You may vote upon the following three last minute projects for February, the most popular of which will be published here.

1. Decidable Predicates. How to decide whether numbers possess a given property.
2. How to make that yummy honeycomb stuff they put in Crunchie bars.
3. What actually happens if you shoot an aerosol can of "Silly Party String" with an air pistol.

You may vote 1, 2 or 3 by responding to this post.