What's the safest helmet?
While not particularly popular in most of the United States yet, it remains one of the world's most watched competitive sports. The most recent Cricket World Cup held in 2023 set multiple broadcasting records, with an estimated 518 million people in India alone watching on TV. Factor in all the people playing on amateur, school, and minor league teams, and that adds up to plenty of chances for disastrous head injuries without the proper protection. So what helmet works best, and why? According to a research team at China's Chongqing Jiaotong University, the answer is clear after enlisting the help of computational simulations–but it still likely depends on your skill level. Their findings were published on July 15 in the journal AIP Advances.
Researchers focused on helmets constructed with three types of materials—a strong plastic called Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), aluminum composites, and fiberglass alloys. While pricier helmets are often constructed from aluminum composites and fiberglass alloys, those made from strong plastics like Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) and other polymers tend to be more popular.
'These materials are not only light, but also have high energy absorption characteristics,' study co-author Tao Wang explained in a statement.
That doesn't mean they are necessarily the best choice, however. To determine their performance comparisons, Wang and colleagues designed a virtual testing program based on precisely measured models of not just each helmet's geometry, but the cranial structure they are designed to protect. They then ran multiple simulations to monitor how a cricket ball's impact against each helmet variant distributed stress and strain across and into cerebral tissue.
After analyzing the data, Wang's team determined that a player's best selection frequently depends on their level of play. When it comes to training or recreational sports, ABS helmets are often sufficient protection. However, that changes for more experienced players and professional athletes. Once reaching that elite status, the safer options are fiberglass or aluminum. While the latter is more brittle, it's better at evenly distributing stress across the head's surface, lowering the risk of traumatic injury.
Wang cautioned that these model-driven rules don't necessarily translate across every sport beyond cricket. It's vital that coaches, players, and helmet designers factor in their specific game's various possibilities, such as a ball's interaction with gravity, rebound potential, angle, and more.
'Each sport should be checked individually, because loading conditions are different in different sports,' Wang said.
Despite this, the study reinforces the importance of continued research into helmet improvements and sports-related injuries. Meanwhile, when it comes to selecting protection before heading out onto a field, one rule remains constant: almost any helmet is better than nothing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Researchers develop 'gene gun' that could revolutionize agriculture: 'The benefits it can bring are invaluable'
Researchers develop 'gene gun' that could revolutionize agriculture: 'The benefits it can bring are invaluable' Researchers have reinvented the classic "gene gun," unveiling a breakthrough that could revolutionize how we grow food, reported This newly engineered device dramatically boosts the efficiency of genetic modification in crops, making it faster and easier to develop plants that can thrive amid climate challenges and support global food 1988, scientists have relied on the gene gun to deliver DNA into plants by firing microscopic particles coated with genetic material directly into plant cells. While groundbreaking, the technique has long struggled with inefficiencies, inconsistent results, and damage caused by the high-speed particles. "We didn't even know we had a problem," said Kan Wang, an agronomist from Iowa State University. But that all changed when materials scientist Shan Jiang took a fresh look. Jiang, whose postdoctoral work at Massachusetts Institute of Technology focused on delivering genetic therapies for human health, applied his expertise to plant science, a field often overlooked by engineers. He saw an opportunity to improve this decades-old technology by refining its internal mechanics. "Very few materials scientists were working on plant cell delivery. Agriculture is always overlooked — people want to cure cancer," he said. After years of trial and error, the breakthrough came from a surprising place: computational fluid dynamics. The team discovered that a bottleneck inside the gene gun's barrel was disrupting the flow of particles, leading to loss, uneven distribution, and slower speeds. By designing a new internal component, the "Flow Guiding Barrel," and testing 3D-printed prototypes, they boosted performance by a staggering margin. "It improved performance by 50%, then two, three, five, 10, 20 times," Jiang said. "I was very shocked, to be honest with you." This upgrade means nearly 100% of particles now reach their target cells, compared to just 21% with the conventional design. Plant scientists saw efficiency improvements up to 22-fold in onions, 17-fold in maize seedlings, and doubled results using CRISPR genome editing in wheat. Wang noted, "We're able to work far more efficiently." Yiping Qi, a University of Maryland plant scientist on the project, added that this innovation could simplify genome editing in multiple staple crops beyond wheat, such as barley and sorghum. Beyond speeding up research, these advances could translate into more resilient crops that withstand more extreme heat and weather as well as pests, improve nutritional content, and reduce the environmental footprint of farming. The Flow Guiding Barrel could save millions in research costs and shorten timeframes to bring enhanced crops to market, an urgent need as climate change threatens global food systems. "The benefits it can bring are invaluable," Jiang said. What is the biggest reason you don't grow food at home? Not enough time Not enough space It seems too hard I have a garden already Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Scientific American
4 days ago
- Scientific American
Students Find Hidden Fibonacci Sequence in Classic Probability Puzzle
A variation of a puzzle called the 'pick-up sticks problem' asks the following question: If I have some number of sticks with random lengths between 0 and 1, what are the chances that no three of those sticks can form a triangle? It turns out the answer to this quandary has an unexpected parallel to a pattern found across nature. The Fibonacci sequence is an ordered collection of numbers in which each term is equal to the previous two added together. It goes like this: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,..., and so on. These numbers show up practically everywhere. If you look at a plant with spirals, such as a pine cone or pineapple, more likely than not, the number of spirals going in each direction will be consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence. But a pair of young researchers were surprised to find that this pattern and the pick-up sticks problem are deeply connected. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The pick-up sticks problem is a variant of the 'broken stick problem,' which can be traced back to at least 1854. In its simplest iteration, the broken stick problem asks the likelihood that a stick broken randomly into three pieces can form a triangle. (In the pick-up stick problem, the lengths don't need to add up to a particular whole, so the possible lengths are distributed differently.) More than a century later, in the October 1959 issue of Scientific American, Martin Gardner wrote about the broken stick problem for his Mathematical Games column. Gardner highlighted it as a classic example of the counterintuitive nature of problems in probability and statistics. In a preprint paper posted to the server in May, the young researchers and their collaborators explore a new variation of the pick-up sticks problem. This effort started when Arthur Sun, a first-year undergraduate student at the University of Cambridge, thought up a problem for a university math contest. What is the likelihood, he wondered, that out of four sticks with random lengths between 0 and 1, no three could make a triangle? He enlisted the help of his friend Edward Wang, at the time a 12th grader at Scotch College, a secondary school in Australia, where he and Sun originally met. Together, Wang and Sun modeled the problem on their computers and ran random trials over and over, keeping track of the results of each trial. It seemed to the pair that four sticks could not make a triangle among them very close to one sixth of the time. Soon Wang and Sun started wondering what the answer was for larger groupings of sticks. They enlisted the help of David Treeby, a mathematician affiliated with Australia's Monash University and a teacher at Scotch College. The group ran even more simulations, and soon a pattern started to emerge. According to the researchers' simulations, if n was the number of sticks selected randomly, the chance of not having a valid triangle among them was the reciprocal of the first n Fibonacci numbers multiplied together. For instance, if you pick six sticks randomly, the probability that you cannot make a triangle with them is 1 / (1 × 1 × 2 × 3 × 5 × 8) = 1 ⁄ 240. The team was surprised that the famous sequence was connected to the triangle problem. 'We'd no reason to suspect that it would be,' Treeby says, 'but it was impossible that it wasn't.' The researchers began to develop a proof of why this connection must be true, but they needed an expert in statistics to pull it all together. They brought in a fourth collaborator, former Monash mathematician Aidan Sudbury. He'd been happily enjoying his retirement when the team approached him. 'I immediately was struck by what a charming problem it was,' he says. 'Delightful!' Together, the four researchers worked out a solid proof of the pattern that Sun and Wang had noticed. Though related results have been proved using similar methods and encompassing a wide array of stick-and-triangle problems, some experts in the field find this new paper's simplicity refreshing. 'What's nice about this is: it's very well written,' says Steven Miller, a mathematician at Williams College and president of the Fibonacci Association. 'It's accessible, it's easy to read, and it's extending a very famous problem.' To understand the pick-up sticks solution, think about the smallest possible case. Suppose you have three sticks with random sizes between 0 and 1. Any three sticks can form a triangle if, and only if, no stick is longer than the other two put together. If you have sticks of lengths 1, 2 and 300, no matter how wide an angle you put between them, the first two sticks could never stretch wide enough to accommodate the third. This is called 'the triangle inequality': if a, b and c represent the lengths of the sticks from shortest to longest, they will only fail to form a triangle when a + b ≤ c. To find the probability that three random lengths form a triangle, mathematicians can consider every set of three lengths as a point in three-dimensional space (for instance, lengths 1 ⁄ 2, 1 ⁄ 6 and 1 ⁄ 3 are represented by the point [ 1 ⁄ 2, 1 ⁄ 6, 1 ⁄ 3 ]). Because the lengths fall between 0 and 1, the set of all such points can be represented by a unit cube: Researchers then look at the subset of this cube where the points satisfy the triangle inequality—a shape that looks like this: With a little geometry, it turns out that this shape is exactly half the volume of the cube. Thus, three randomly picked lengths will be able to form a triangle exactly half of the time, as 1 / (1 × 1 × 2) = 1 ⁄ 2. Where does Fibonacci come in? Suppose a collection of any number of sticks is ordered from shortest to longest. If no three among them form a triangle, each stick's length must be greater than or equal to the sum of the previous two—otherwise, those three sticks could make a triangle. In the Fibonacci sequence, each number is precisely equal to the sum of the previous two. In other words, each segment of the Fibonacci sequence is as close as possible to having a triangle in it without actually having one. In Treeby's words, 'If we [avoid triangles] greedily, the Fibonacci sequence appears naturally.' The researchers feel there should be some path directly from this insight to a proof of the pick-up sticks theorem. They couldn't find one, however. 'We sort of hoped to find something that was a little bit more ... intuitive, but we couldn't formalize our thinking,' Treeby says. Instead their paper uses integrals to calculate the high-dimensional volumes directly—a method a bit like looking at the area inside the cube above (but without the visual reference). The researchers aren't on the prowl for a different proof right now—but they hope someone else might find one.
Yahoo
20-07-2025
- Yahoo
Life on the Moon? Lunar soil could help humans live on the Moon, study finds
The soil on the Moon might be able to sustain life, according to a new study. Researchers from the Chinese University of Hong Kong developed a technology to extract water from lunar soil and used it to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and chemical fuel. The technology does this by converting light from the Sun into heat. According to the study, published in the Cell Press journal Joule, the research could 'potentially open new doors for future deep space exploration' because it could mitigate the expensive costs needed to bring essential resources such as water to the Moon. A single gallon (3.78 litres) of water costs $83,000 (€71,230) to ship up by rocket, the study continued, with one astronaut drinking roughly four gallons (15.14 litres) a day. 'We never fully imagined the 'magic' that the lunar soil possessed,' said lead researcher Lu Wang. Related US Senate greenlights billions for Moon missions despite Elon Musk's opposition However, the study notes that any strategies that are already in place to extract water from the surface of the Moon involve multiple 'energy-intensive' steps and do not break down how much CO2 is used by fuel. The Moon's extreme lunar environment will still make it challenging to harvest more oxygen and water from the land, the study continued, because there are 'drastic temperature fluctuations,' radiation and low gravity to deal with. The CO2 emitted from the breaths of the astronauts won't be enough to supply all the water, fuel and oxygen that the team of astronauts might need.
