View Full Version : Living in a material world
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/m...ency-0404.html
Report finds materials manufacturers will likely be unable to meet targets for carbon-emissions reductions by 2050.
A new report by researchers at MIT and elsewhere finds that the global manufacturing sector has made great strides in energy efficiency: The manufacturing of materials such as steel, cement, paper and aluminum has become increasingly streamlined, requiring far less energy than when these processes were first invented.
However, despite more energy-efficient manufacturing, the researchers found that such processes may be approaching their thermodynamic limits: There are increasingly limited options available to make them significantly more efficient. The result, the team observed, is that energy efficiency for many important processes in manufacturing is approaching a plateau.
The researchers looked at how materials manufacturing might meet the energy-reduction targets implied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has suggested a 50 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 as a means of avoiding further climate change. Meanwhile, economists have estimated that global demand for materials will simultaneously double.
To reduce energy use by 50 percent while doubling the output of materials, the team — led by graduate student Sahil Sahni and Tim Gutowski, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT — studied whether manufacturing processes could improve in efficiency by 75 percent. The researchers identified the five most energy-using materials produced, and outlined scenarios in which further energy may be saved in manufacturing. But even in the most aggressive scenario, the team found it was only able to reduce energy use by about 50 percent — far short of its 75 percent goal.
“What we’re saying is, when you look really big, at global targets for limiting climate change, we think this appears to be beyond what industry can do by itself,” says Gutowski, who leads MIT’s Environmentally Benign Manufacturing research group. “If industry can’t meet these goals, we may need bigger cuts in other sectors.”
The researchers published their results in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Their co-authors are Julian Allwood and Michael Ashby, of Cambridge University, and Ernst Worrell of Utrecht University in the Netherlands.
Even an optimistic scenario is not enough
To assess the potential for energy reduction in manufacturing, Gutowski and his colleagues first identified the five materials whose production consumes the most energy. These materials — steel, cement, paper, plastics and aluminum — represent roughly half of energy used and more than half of carbon dioxide emitted in the manufacturing sector. The researchers then identified the most energy-intensive processes involved in manufacturing each of these materials, and looked for ways in which these processes might be made more efficient.
For example, the team looked for the best available technologies associated with materials manufacturing. According to Gutowski, “There is a distribution of how efficient these operations are around the world.” Some facilities may adopt the most efficient (and expensive) equipment, while others retain older, energy-inefficient processes.
“These are huge facilities, and very capital-intensive,” Gutowski says. “When you build one, you don’t want to scrap the whole thing and build a new one. So they stay in place for a long time.”
The researchers drew up an optimistic scenario in which every manufacturing facility adopts the best available technologies. The team disregarded cost — in reality, often a huge barrier to installing energy-efficient processes. Instead, the researchers looked for any solution that may improve energy efficiency by 75 percent — but found they were unable to reach even half of that value
The team then tried another tactic, looking to reduce energy-intensive processing through wider adoption of recycling; it requires far less energy to recycle a material than it does to manufacture it from scratch. However, they found limits in the supply of recyclable materials, particularly in developing countries that are growing at high rates.
What about substituting materials such as concrete for steel, or steel for aluminum? The team observed that such changes might save money, as less energy-intensive materials are often also cheaper. But the properties of the substituted materials differ, leading to very different designs, so the comparisons are not straightforward. And in general, Gutowski notes, the trends are actually in the opposite direction: “We are substituting more energy-intensive materials for the less energy-intensive.”
In the end, the group found that the manufacturing sector as a whole would only be able to reduce its energy use by about 50 percent. A major constraint, Gutowski says, is the materials’ thermodynamic limit: the minimum energy required to manufacture a material from raw inputs. Manufacturers have already made great strides and the best available technologies are now approaching these limits, particularly for the five materials studied — making it difficult, and costly, to achieve further gains.
Making strides without hurting too much
Despite these limitations, Gutowski says these gains should be pursued and that there remain additional ways to reduce energy consumption. For example, materials can be made to last longer, or to serve more people. Both scenarios may serve to reduce demand, and hence energy use and carbon emissions.
John Sutherland, a professor of environmental and ecological engineering at Purdue University, sees the group’s results as a necessary reality check.
“Just trying to be more efficient in terms of manufacturing is not going to have the impact needed to meet the long-term energy-reduction goals,” says Sutherland, who did not participate in the research. “A fundamental paradigm change does offer promise, [such as] dematerialization — meeting needs through services rather than with material-intensive products.”
Gutowski says societal actions also play a part in reducing energy use. People may choose to carpool, or take the train, rather than driving their car to work — choices that would improve material efficiency from a broad perspective.
To date, he says, society hasn’t made as many improvements in energy efficiency as industry. The incentive for industry is to reduce costs; for society to make the same cuts in energy use, different incentives may be needed.
“I think the game is to get people to do this without it hurting too much,” Gutowski says. “If we put in place incentives, we could probably surprise ourselves at how we might be able to make great strides.”
Interesting... Thoughts?
I didn't put this in the climate thread because this is about more than carbon emissions.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/s...oday-0405.html
A ‘green’ Sahara was far less dusty than today
Research points to an abrupt and widespread climate shift in the Sahara 5,000 years ago.
As recently as 5,000 years ago, the Sahara — today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles — was a verdant landscape, with sprawling vegetation and numerous lakes. Ancient cave paintings in the region depict hippos in watering holes, and roving herds of elephants and giraffes — a vibrant contrast with today’s barren, inhospitable terrain.
The Sahara’s “green” era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.
Now researchers at MIT, Columbia University and elsewhere have found that this abrupt climate change occurred nearly simultaneously across North Africa.
The team traced the region’s wet and dry periods over the past 30,000 years by analyzing sediment samples off the coast of Africa. Such sediments are composed, in part, of dust blown from the continent over thousands of years: The more dust that accumulated in a given period, the drier the continent may have been.
From their measurements, the researchers found that the Sahara emitted five times less dust during the African Humid Period than the region does today. Their results, which suggest a far greater change in Africa’s climate than previously estimated, will be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
David McGee, an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, says the quantitative results of the study will help scientists determine the influence of dust emissions on both past and present climate change.
“Our results point to surprisingly large changes in how much dust is coming out of Africa,” says McGee, who did much of the work as a postdoc at Columbia. “This gives us a baseline for looking further back in time, to interpret how big past climate swings were. This [period] was the most recent climate swing in Africa. What was it like before?”
Getting to the core of dust
To trace Africa’s dust emissions through time, McGee analyzed sediment samples collected in 2007 by researchers from Columbia and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Researchers sampled from sites off the northwest coast of Africa, spanning a distance of more than 550 miles.
At each site, they collected a core sample — a 10-foot long cylinder topped by a weight — which scientists submerged, collecting a column of sediment.
McGee says a 10-foot column represents approximately 30,000 years of sediments deposited, layer by layer, in the ocean — sediments like windblown dust from the continent, marine deposits brought in by ocean currents, and leftover bits of organisms that sank to the seafloor. A centimeter of sediment corresponds to about 100 years of deposition, providing what McGee calls a “high-resolution” record of dust changes through time.
To trace how much windblown dust accumulated over the past 30,000 years, McGee used a combination of techniques to first determine how fast sediments accumulated over time, then subtracted out the accumulation of marine sediments and biological remnants.
Layer by layer
Using a technique called thorium-230 normalization, McGee and his colleagues calculated accumulation rates for sediment layers every two to three centimeters along the column. The technique is based on the decay of uranium in seawater: Over time, uranium decays to thorium-230, an insoluble chemical that sticks to any falling sediment as it sinks to the seafloor. The amount of uranium — and by extension, the production rate of thorium-230 — in the world’s oceans is relatively constant. McGee measured the concentration of thorium-230 in each core sample to determine the accumulation rates of sediments through time.
In periods when sediments accumulated quickly, there was a smaller concentration of thorium-230. In slower-accumulating periods, McGee measured a greater thorium-230 concentration.
Once the team calculated rates of sediment accumulation over the past 30,000 years, it went about determining how much of that sediment was dust from neighboring Africa. The researchers subtracted biological sediment from the samples by measuring calcium carbonate, opal and organic carbon, the primary remnants of living organisms. After subtracting this measurement from each sample layer, the researchers tackled the task of separating the remaining sediment into windblown dust and marine sediments — particles that circulate through the ocean, deposited on the seafloor by currents.
McGee employed a second technique called grain-size endmember modeling, charting a distribution of grain sizes ranging from coarse grains of dust to fine grains of marine soil.
“We define these endmembers: A pure dust signal would look like this, and a pure marine sediment would look like this,” McGee says. “And then we see, OK, what combination of those extremes would give us this mixture that we see here?”
This study, McGee says, is the first in which researchers have combined the two techniques — endmember modeling and thorium-230 normalization — a pairing that produced very precise measurements of dust emissions through tens of thousands of years.
In the end, the team found that during some dry periods North Africa emitted more than twice the dust generated today. Through their samples, the researchers found the African Humid Period began and ended very abruptly, consistent with previous findings. However, they found that 6,000 years ago, toward the end of this period, dust emissions were one-fifth today’s levels, and far less dusty than previous estimates.
McGee says these new measurements may give scientists a better understanding of how dust fluxes relate to climate by providing inputs for climate models.
Natalie Mahowald, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University, says the group’s combination of techniques yielded more robust estimates of dust than previous studies.
“Dust is one of the most important aerosols for climate and biogeochemistry,” Mahowald says. “This study suggests very large fluctuations due to climate over the last 10,000 years, which has enormous implications for human-derived climate change.”
As a next step, McGee is working with collaborators to test whether these new measurements may help to resolve a longstanding problem: the inability of climate models to reproduce the magnitude of wet conditions in North Africa 6,000 years ago. By using these new results to estimate the climate impacts of dust emissions on regional climate, models may finally be able to replicate the North Africa of 6,000 years ago — a region of grasslands that were host to a variety of roaming wildlife.
“This is a period that captures people’s imaginations,” McGee says. “It’s important to understand whether and how much dust has had an impact on past climate.”
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation and by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration postdoctoral fellowship to McGee.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/p...-dna-0409.html
Patterning graphene with DNA
Folded DNA templates allow researchers to precisely cut out graphene shapes, which could be used in electronic circuits.
DNA’s unique structure is ideal for carrying genetic information, but scientists have recently found ways to exploit this versatile molecule for other purposes: By controlling DNA sequences, they can manipulate the molecule to form many different nanoscale shapes.
Chemical and molecular engineers at MIT and Harvard University have now expanded this approach by using folded DNA to control the nanostructure of inorganic materials. After building DNA nanostructures of various shapes, they used the molecules as templates to create nanoscale patterns on sheets of graphene. This could be an important step toward large-scale production of electronic chips made of graphene, a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon with unique electronic properties.
“This gives us a chemical tool to program shapes and patterns at the nanometer scale, forming electronic circuits, for example,” says Michael Strano, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT and a senior author of a paper describing the technique in the April 9 issue of Nature Communications.
Peng Yin, an assistant professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School and a member of Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, is also a senior author of the paper, and MIT postdoc Zhong Jin is the lead author. Other authors are Harvard postdocs Wei Sun and Yonggang Ke, MIT graduate students Chih-Jen Shih and Geraldine Paulus, and MIT postdocs Qing Hua Wang and Bin Mu.
Most of these DNA nanostructures are made using a novel approach developed in Yin’s lab. Complex DNA nanostructures with precisely prescribed shapes are constructed using short synthetic DNA strands called single-stranded tiles. Each of these tiles acts like an interlocking toy brick and binds with four designated neighbors.
Using these single-stranded tiles, Yin’s lab has created more than 100 distinct nanoscale shapes, including the full alphabet of capital English letters and many emoticons. These structures are designed using computer software and can be assembled in a simple reaction. Alternatively, such structures can be constructed using an approach called DNA origami, in which many short strands of DNA fold a long strand into a desired shape.
However, DNA tends to degrade when exposed to sunlight or oxygen, and can react with other molecules, so it is not ideal as a long-term building material. “We’d like to exploit the properties of more stable nanomaterials for structural applications or electronics,” Strano says.
Instead, he and his colleagues transferred the precise structural information encoded in DNA to sturdier graphene. The chemical process involved is fairly straightforward, Strano says: First, the DNA is anchored onto a graphene surface using a molecule called aminopyrine, which is similar in structure to graphene. The DNA is then coated with small clusters of silver along the surface, which allows a subsequent layer of gold to be deposited on top of the silver.
Once the molecule is coated in gold, the stable metallized DNA can be used as a mask for a process called plasma lithography. Oxygen plasma, a very reactive “gas flow” of ionized molecules, is used to wear away any unprotected graphene, leaving behind a graphene structure identical to the original DNA shape. The metallized DNA is then washed away with sodium cyanide.
Shaping graphene circuits
The research team used this technique to create several types of shapes, including X and Y junctions, as well as rings and ribbons. They found that although most of the structural information is preserved, some information is lost when the DNA is coated in metal, so the technique is not yet as precise as another technique called e-beam lithography.
However, e-beam lithography, which uses beams of electrons to carve shapes into graphene, is expensive and takes a long time, so it would be very difficult to scale it up to mass-produce electrical or other components made of graphene.
One shape of particular interest to scientists is a graphene ribbon, which is a very narrow strip of graphene that confines the material’s electrons, giving it new properties. Graphene doesn’t normally have a bandgap — a property necessary for any material to act as a typical transistor. However, graphene ribbons do have a bandgap, so they could be used as components of electronic circuits.
“There is still interest in using graphene for digital electronics. Graphene itself isn’t ideal for this, but if you pattern it into ribbons, it may be possible,” Strano says.
Scientists are also interested in graphene rings because they can be used as quantum interference transistors, a novel type of transistor created when electrons flow around a circle. This type of behavior has only recently been observed, and this fabrication technique could allow scientists to create many rings so they can study this phenomenon more thoroughly.
In the longer term, the DNA nanostructure fabrication strategy could help researchers design and build electronic circuits made of graphene. This has been difficult so far because it’s challenging to place tiny carbon structures, such as nanotubes and nanowires, onto a graphene sheet. However, using the metallized DNA masks to arrange structures on a sheet of graphene could make the process much easier.
The new approach is “conceptually novel,” says Robert Haddon, a professor of chemical and environmental engineering at the University of California at Riverside, who was not part of the research team. “The work shows the potential of self-assembled metallized DNA nanoarchitectures as lithographic masks for wafer-scale patterning of graphene-based electronic circuit elements. I believe that this approach will stimulate further research on the application of nanopatterning techniques in graphene-based nanoelectronics.”
The research was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Army Research Office through the MIT Institute of Soldier Nanotechnologies.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130409092841-0.jpg
At left, metallized DNA (red) forms letters on a graphene surface. Treatment with oxygen plasma etches the shape of the letters into the graphene, right.
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 01:43 PM
http://art.ngfiles.com/images/133/grimseye_soulless.png
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 01:45 PM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5lT0J0c9ahx5V28frcaMh50LGxPBLa pWrnkc69dE2LSxm_fYIzg
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 01:46 PM
you should check this out. has lots of stuff on Prosthetics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW7Rm2rFW8Y
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 01:48 PM
i really like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDN3cr01LiY
SoCo KungFu
04-09-2013, 02:55 PM
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/m...ency-0404.html
Interesting... Thoughts?
I didn't put this in the climate thread because this is about more than carbon emissions.
Jevons Paradox
No need to act out just because you don't have what it takes to understand the article. I'd rather be soulless than barely literate.
You should give it a shot though. Let us know how many google searches you needed just to understand the terminology.
Jevons Paradox
Word......
Rebound effect.
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 02:58 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.386.386/p403x403/46276_435747309817651_1019076449_n.jpg
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 03:02 PM
No need to act out just because you don't have what it takes to understand the article. I'd rather be soulless than barely literate.
You should give it a shot though. Let us know how many google searches you needed just to understand the terminology.
i bet you have a pocket protector don't you?
I'm smiling right now. I finished my work early and rolled up a humongous spliff.
I use pencil. Pens are annoying and messy. For final draft I use this majik box called com-pu-tor!!! Another useless invention by some soulless scientist.
Love the stereotype though. Truth is, I can't stand button up shirts. Besides, if I kept pens in a breast pocket they would fly all over place when I'm rocking air flares. You know what air flares are right? It's that thing that gets ya girl wet while she watchin me.
And we both know you don't have the attention span to actually read the articles. But if you try, let us know how many searches you did. Maybe you can give us a synopsis on each one just to show you understand. I won't hold my breath though.
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 03:19 PM
Love the stereotype though. Truth is, I can't stand button up shirts. Besides, if I kept pens in a breast pocket they would fly all over place when I'm rocking air flares. You know what air flares are right? It's that thing that gets ya girl wet while she watchin me.
http://t.qkme.me/367kvk.jpg
And we both know you don't have the attention span to actually read the articles. But if you try, let us know how many searches you did. Maybe you can give us a synopsis on each one just to show you understand. I won't hold my breath though.
yeah? is that what you would like me to do?
good thing you can rely on that mental muscle. substitution is a mudda fukka.
http://t.qkme.me/367kvk.jpg
It does when she's watching me.
hskwarrior
04-09-2013, 03:25 PM
It does when she's watching me.
its not that type of party so proving it to me is wasting your time. it won't change the image you have created for yourself.
Now I'm somethin' like a phenomenon
I'm somethin' like a phenomenon
Well I'm the hourglass cat
Drug it out of jack
For jill?
Cause I spilled the phenomenon
Pack the holes in my lawn
The girls in my sauna
Word is born I'm a livin' phenomenon
- Pos
http://youtu.be/EDyHftGcDKg
MIT has K-12 articles too. Maybe you can start there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B690OABMksI
Lucas
04-10-2013, 02:58 PM
http://thenynthlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/madonna.jpg
Is this you, Lucas?
http://youtu.be/yPDGCKFwt0w
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/shedding-light-on-the-search-for-dark-matter-0410.html
Shedding light on the search for dark matter
Physicists and astronaut discuss cosmic ray detector’s findings of possible signs of dark matter.
Two MIT physicists and an alumnus who’s a NASA astronaut spoke on campus earlier this week, describing an experiment that’s been 18 years in the making and yielded its first significant results just last week.
The experiment, called the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, was mounted on the side of the orbiting International Space Station (ISS) in May 2011, when it was delivered there by a space shuttle crew that included astronaut Michael Fincke ’89. Fincke has logged more time in space than any other active astronaut, having spent more than a year in space, including more than 50 hours on spacewalks.
Fincke and Andrei Kounine, a senior researcher in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and AMS’s coordinator for physics analysis, described the experiment’s results, and the process of getting the experiment into space. They were introduced by Samuel Ting, the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Physics, who conceived of the AMS experiment 18 years ago and led its development and deployment. The $1.6 billion project ultimately involved 650 scientists from more than 50 universities and agencies in 16 countries.
So far, the magnetic detector has recorded more than 30 billion “events” — impacts from cosmic rays. Of those, 6.8 billion have been identified as impacts from electrons or their antimatter counterpart, positrons — identified through comparisons of their numbers, energies and directions of origin.
AMS’s most eagerly anticipated findings — observations that would either confirm or disprove the existence of theoretical particles that might be a component of dark matter — have yet to be made, but Ting expressed confidence that an answer to that question will be obtained once more data is collected. The experiment is designed to keep going for at least 10 years.
In the meantime, the results so far — showing more positrons than expected — already demonstrate that new physical phenomena are being observed, Ting and Kounine said. What’s not yet clear is whether this is proof of dark matter in the form of exotic particles called neutralinos, which have been theorized but never observed, or whether it can instead be explained by emissions from distant pulsars.
Kounine explained that in addition to its primary focus on identifying signs of dark matter, AMS is also capable of detecting a wide variety of phenomena involving particles in space. For example, he said, “it can identify all the species of ions that exist in space” — particles whose abundance may help to refine theories about the origins and interactions of matter in the universe. “It has great potential to produce a lot more physics results,” Kounine said.
An answer on whether the observed particles are being produced by collisions of dark matter will come from graphing the numbers of electrons and positrons versus the energy of those particles. If the number of particles declines gradually toward higher energies, that would indicate their source is probably pulsars. But if it declines abruptly, that would be clear evidence of dark matter.
“Clearly, these observations point to the existence of a new physical phenomenon,” Kounine said. “But we can’t tell [yet] whether it’s from a particle origin, or astrophysical.”
Fincke, one of two astronauts who actually attached the AMS to the exterior of the ISS, said he was honored to have had the opportunity to deliver such an important payload. He was joined on the mission — the last flight of space shuttle Endeavour, and the second-to-last of NASA’s entire shuttle program — by another MIT alum, Greg Chamitoff PhD ’92.
Before the mission, the Endeavour astronauts visited CERN in Switzerland, where AMS’s mission control center is located, to learn about the precious payload they would be installing, Fincke said. “That got our crew to be extremely motivated to ensure success,” he said.
The device itself, Fincke explained, “was built to have as little interaction with astronauts as possible”: Once bolted into place, it requires no further attention. And while it was designed to withstand inadvertent impacts, he said that he and his fellow astronauts were careful to give it a wide berth. “We didn’t want to even get close,” he said.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130410130339-0.jpg
Astronaut Michael Fincke '89 captured this image of his own reflection during a spacewalk. The AMS, already installed on the International Space Station, is just behind him at top left.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/nasa-selects-tess-for-mission-0405.html
NASA selects MIT-led TESS project for 2017 mission
$200 million project will launch telescopes to perform full-sky search for transiting exoplanets.
Following a three-year competition, NASA has selected the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) project at MIT for a planned launch in 2017. The space agency announced the mission — to be funded by a $200 million grant to the MIT-led team — this afternoon.
TESS team partners include the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research (MKI) and MIT Lincoln Laboratory; NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center; Orbital Sciences Corporation; NASA’s Ames Research Center; the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; The Aerospace Corporation; and the Space Telescope Science Institute.
The project, led by principal investigator George Ricker, a senior research scientist at MKI, will use an array of wide-field cameras to perform an all-sky survey to discover transiting exoplanets, ranging from Earth-sized planets to gas giants, in orbit around the brightest stars in the sun’s neighborhood.
An exoplanet is a planet orbiting a star other than the sun; a transiting exoplanet is one that periodically eclipses its host star.
“TESS will carry out the first space-borne all-sky transit survey, covering 400 times as much sky as any previous mission,” Ricker says. “It will identify thousands of new planets in the solar neighborhood, with a special focus on planets comparable in size to the Earth.”
TESS relies upon a number of innovations developed by the MIT team over the past seven years. “For TESS, we were able to devise a special new ‘Goldilocks’ orbit for the spacecraft — one which is not too close, and not too far, from both the Earth and the moon,” Ricker says.
As a result, every two weeks TESS approaches close enough to the Earth for high data-downlink rates, while remaining above the planet’s harmful radiation belts. This special orbit will remain stable for decades, keeping TESS’s sensitive cameras in a very stable temperature range.
With TESS, it will be possible to study the masses, sizes, densities, orbits and atmospheres of a large cohort of small planets, including a sample of rocky worlds in the habitable zones of their host stars. TESS will provide prime targets for further characterization by the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as other large ground-based and space-based telescopes of the future.
TESS project members include Ricker; Josh Winn, an associate professor of physics at MIT; and Sara Seager, a professor of planetary science and physics at MIT.
“We’re very excited about TESS because it’s the natural next step in exoplanetary science,” Winn says.
“The selection of TESS has just accelerated our chances of finding life on another planet within the next decade,” Seager adds.
MKI research scientists Roland Vanderspek and Joel Villasenor will serve as deputy principal investigator and payload scientist, respectively. Principal research scientist Alan Levine serves as a co-investigator. Tony Smith of Lincoln Lab will manage the TESS payload effort, Lincoln Lab will develop the optical cameras and custom charge-coupled devices required by the mission.
“NASA’s Explorer Program gives us a wonderful opportunity to carry out forefront space science with a relatively small university-based group and on a time scale well-matched to the rapidly evolving field of extrasolar planets,” says Jackie Hewitt, a professor of physics and director of the Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. “At MIT, TESS has the involvement of faculty and research staff of the Kavli Institute, the Department of Physics, and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, so we will be actively engaging students in this exciting work.”
Previous sky surveys with ground-based telescopes have mainly picked out giant exoplanets. NASA’s Kepler spacecraft has recently uncovered the existence of many smaller exoplanets, but the stars Kepler examines are faint and difficult to study. In contrast, TESS will examine a large number of small planets around the very brightest stars in the sky.
“The TESS legacy will be a catalog of the nearest and brightest main-sequence stars hosting transiting exoplanets, which will forever be the most favorable targets for detailed investigations,” Ricker said.
The other mission selected today by NASA is the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER). It will be mounted on the International Space Station and measure the variability of cosmic X-ray sources, a process called X-ray timing, to explore the exotic states of matter within neutron stars and reveal their interior and surface compositions. NICER’s principal investigator is Keith Gendreau of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The MKI group, lead by Ricker, is also a partner in the NICER mission.
“The Explorer Program has a long and stellar history of deploying truly innovative missions to study some of the most exciting questions in space science,” John Grunsfeld, NASA’s associate administrator for science, said in the space agency’s statement today. “With these missions we will learn about the most extreme states of matter by studying neutron stars and we will identify many nearby star systems with rocky planets in the habitable zone for further study by telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope.”
The Explorer Program is NASA’s oldest continuous program and has launched more than 90 missions. It began in 1958 with the Explorer 1, which discovered the Earth’s radiation belts. Another Explorer mission, the Cosmic Background Explorer, led to a Nobel Prize. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center manages the program for the agency’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130405155800-0.jpg
Artist's rendering of TESS in orbit
ILLUSTRATION: CHET BEALS/MIT LINCOLN LAB
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/april/clarity.html
Getting CLARITY: Hydrogel process developed at Stanford creates transparent brain
BY ANDREW MYERS
Combining neuroscience and chemical engineering, researchers at Stanford University have developed a process that renders a mouse brain transparent. The postmortem brain remains whole — not sliced or sectioned in any way — with its three-dimensional complexity of fine wiring and molecular structures completely intact and able to be measured and probed at will with visible light and chemicals.
The process, called CLARITY, ushers in an entirely new era of whole-organ imaging that stands to fundamentally change our scientific understanding of the most-important-but-least-understood of organs, the brain, and potentially other organs, as well.
The process is described in a paper published online April 10 in Nature by bioengineer and psychiatrist Karl Deisseroth, MD, PhD, leading a multidisciplinary team, including postdoctoral scholar Kwanghun Chung, PhD.
"Studying intact systems with this sort of molecular resolution and global scope — to be able to see the fine detail and the big picture at the same time — has been a major unmet goal in biology, and a goal that CLARITY begins to address," Deisseroth said.
"This feat of chemical engineering promises to transform the way we study the brain's anatomy and how disease changes it," said Thomas Insel, MD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health. "No longer will the in-depth study of our most important three-dimensional organ be constrained by two-dimensional methods."
The research in this study was performed primarily on a mouse brain, but the researchers have used CLARITY on zebrafish and on preserved human brain samples with similar results, establishing a path for future studies of human samples and other organisms.
"CLARITY promises to revolutionize our understanding of how local and global changes in brain structure and activity translate into behavior," said Paul Frankland, PhD, a senior scientist in neurosciences and mental health at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto, who was not involved in the research. Frankland's colleague, senior scientist Sheena Josselyn, PhD, added that the process could turn the brain from "a mysterious black box" into something essentially transparent.
An inscrutable place
The mound of convoluted grey matter and wiring that is the brain is a complex and inscrutable place. Neuroscientists have struggled to fully understand its circuitry in their quest to comprehend how the brain works, and why, sometimes, it doesn't.
CLARITY is the result of a research effort in Deisseroth's lab to extract the opaque elements — in particular the lipids — from a brain and yet keep the important features fully intact. Lipids are fatty molecules found throughout the brain and body. In the brain, especially, they help form cell membranes and give the brain much of its structure. Lipids pose a double challenge for biological study, however, because they make the brain largely impermeable both to chemicals and to light.
Neuroscientists would have liked to extract the lipids to reveal the brain's fine structure without slicing or sectioning, but for one major hitch: removing these structurally important molecules causes the remaining tissue to fall apart.
Prior investigations have focused instead on automating the slicing/sectioning approach, or in treating the brain with organic molecules that facilitate the penetration of light only, but not macromolecular probes. With CLARITY, Deisseroth's team has taken a fundamentally different approach.
"We drew upon chemical engineering to transform biological tissue into a new state that is intact but optically transparent and permeable to macromolecules," said Chung, the paper's first author.
This new form is created by replacing the brain's lipids with a hydrogel. The hydrogel is built from within the brain itself in a process conceptually similar to petrification, using what is initially a watery suspension of short, individual molecules known as hydrogel monomers. The intact, postmortem brain is immersed in the hydrogel solution and the monomers infuse the tissue. Then, when "thermally triggered," or heated slightly to about body temperature, the monomers begin to congeal into long molecular chains known as polymers, forming a mesh throughout the brain. This mesh holds everything together, but, importantly, it does not bind to the lipids.
With the tissue shored up in this way, the team is able to vigorously and rapidly extract lipids through a process called electrophoresis. What remains is a 3-D, transparent brain with all of its important structures — neurons, axons, dendrites, synapses, proteins, nucleic acids and so forth — intact and in place.
Going things one better
CLARITY then goes one better. In preserving the full continuity of neuronal structures, CLARITY not only allows tracing of individual neural connections over long distances through the brain, but also provides a way to gather rich, molecular information describing a cell's function is that is not possible with other methods.
"We thought that if we could remove the lipids nondestructively, we might be able to get both light and macromolecules to penetrate deep into tissue, allowing not only 3-D imaging, but also 3-D molecular analysis of the intact brain," said Deisseroth, who holds the D.H. Chen Professorship.
Using fluorescent antibodies that are known to seek out and attach themselves only to specific proteins, Deisseroth's team showed that it can target specific structures within the CLARITY-modified — or "clarified" — mouse brain and make those structures and only those structures light up under illumination. The researchers can trace neural circuits through the entire brain or explore deeply into the nuances of local circuit wiring. They can see the relationships between cells and investigate subcellular structures. They can even look at chemical relationships of protein complexes, nucleic acids and neurotransmitters.
"Being able to determine the molecular structure of various cells and their contacts through antibody staining is a core capability of CLARITY, separate from the optical transparency, which enables us to visualize relationships among brain components in fundamentally new ways," said Deisseroth, who is one of 15 experts on the "dream team" that will map out goals for the $100 million brain research initiative announced April 2 by President Obama.
And in yet another significant capability from a research standpoint, researchers are now able to destain the clarified brain, flushing out the fluorescent antibodies and repeating the staining process anew using different antibodies to explore different molecular targets in the same brain. This staining/destaining process can be repeated multiple times, the authors showed, and the different data sets aligned with one another.
Opening the door
CLARITY has accordingly made it possible to perform highly detailed, fine-structural analysis on intact brains — even human tissues that have been preserved for many years, the team showed. Transforming human brains into transparent-but-stable specimens with accessible wiring and molecular detail may yield improved understanding of the structural underpinnings of brain function and disease.
Beyond the immediate and apparent benefit to neuroscience, Deisseroth cautioned that CLARITY has leapfrogged our ability to deal with the data. "Turning massive amounts of data into useful insight poses immense computational challenges that will have to be addressed. We will have to develop improved computational approaches to image segmentation, 3-D image registration, automated tracing and image acquisition," he said.
Indeed, such pressures will increase as CLARITY could begin to support a deeper understanding of large-scale intact biological systems and organs, perhaps even entire organisms.
"Of particular interest for future study are intrasystem relationships, not only in the mammalian brain but also in other tissues or diseases for which full understanding is only possible when thorough analysis of single, intact systems can be conducted," Deisseroth said. "CLARITY may be applicable to any biological system, and it will be interesting to see how other branches of biology may put it to use."
Other co-authors include undergraduate student Jenelle Wallace; graduate studentsSung-Yon Kim, Kelly Zalocusky, Joanna Mattis, Aleksandra Denisin and Logan Grosenick; research assistants Sandhiya Kalyanasundaram, Julie Mirzabekov, Sally Pak and Charu Ramakrishnan; postdoctoral scholars Aaron Andalman, PhD, and Tom Davidson, PhD; former undergraduate student Hannah Bernstein; and former staff scientist Viviana Gradinaru.
The research is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant MH099647); the National Science Foundation; the Simons Foundation; the President and Provost of Stanford University; the Wiegers, Snyder, Reeves, Gatsby and Yu foundations; the DARPA REPAIR program; and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.
Stanford's Department of Bioengineering also supported the work. The department is jointly operated by the School of Engineering and the School of Medicine.
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/images/featureStories/clarity-newsprint-041013.jpg
Intact adult mouse brain before and after the two-day CLARITY process. In the image on the right, the fine brain structures can be seen faintly as the areas of blurriness above the words "number," "unexplored," "continent" and "stretches." [Click the image for the high-resolution version.]
****!!!
Lucas
04-11-2013, 01:52 PM
Is this you, Lucas?
http://youtu.be/yPDGCKFwt0w
Yes, yes it is. Oh wait, I mean no. No it is not. Sorry I got confused.
Read the ****in article....!!!
Expand, sucka!!!
Lucas
04-11-2013, 03:08 PM
I am not understanding your hostility, Sir.
Jokes Lucas. Now read the articles! :p
Lucas
04-11-2013, 04:00 PM
I know, I was joking back at you!!!!!
:mad:
I know, I was joking back at you!!!!!
:mad:
Sure... Read the articles :mad:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/photon-to-electron-conversion-0418.html
Special deal on photon-to-electron conversion: Two for one!
New technique developed at MIT could enable a major boost in solar-cell efficiency.
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
Throughout decades of research on solar cells, one formula has been considered an absolute limit to the efficiency of such devices in converting sunlight into electricity: Called the Shockley-Queisser efficiency limit, it posits that the ultimate conversion efficiency can never exceed 34 percent for a single optimized semiconductor junction.
Now, researchers at MIT have shown that there is a way to blow past that limit as easily as today’s jet fighters zoom through the sound barrier — which was also once seen as an ultimate limit.
Their work appears this week in a report in the journal Science, co-authored by graduate students including Daniel Congreve, Nicholas Thompson, Eric Hontz and Shane Yost, alumna Jiye Lee ’12, and professors Marc Baldo and Troy Van Voorhis.
The principle behind the barrier-busting technique has been known theoretically since the 1960s, says Baldo, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT. But it was a somewhat obscure idea that nobody had succeeded in putting into practice. The MIT team was able, for the first time, to perform a successful “proof of principle” of the idea, which is known as singlet exciton fission. (An exciton is the excited state of a molecule after absorbing energy from a photon.)
In a standard photovoltaic (PV) cell, each photon knocks loose exactly one electron inside the PV material. That loose electron then can be harnessed through wires to provide an electrical current.
But in the new technique, each photon can instead knock two electrons loose. This makes the process much more efficient: In a standard cell, any excess energy carried by a photon is wasted as heat, whereas in the new system the extra energy goes into producing two electrons instead of one.
While others have previously “split” a photon’s energy, they have done so using ultraviolet light, a relatively minor component of sunlight at Earth’s surface. The new work represents the first time this feat has been accomplished with visible light, laying a pathway for practical applications in solar PV panels.
This was accomplished using an organic compound called pentacene in an organic solar cell. While that material’s ability to produce two excitons from one photon had been known, nobody had previously been able to incorporate it within a PV device that generated more than one electron per photon.
“Our whole project was directed at showing that this splitting process was effective,” says Baldo, who is also the director of the Center for Excitonics, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. “We showed that we could get through that barrier.”
The theoretical basis for this work was laid long ago, says Congreve, but nobody had been able to realize it in a real, functioning system. “In this system,” he says, “everyone knew you could, they were just waiting for someone to do it.”
“This is the landmark event we had all been waiting to see,” adds Richard Friend, the Cavendish Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in this research. “This is really great research.”
Since this was just a first proof of principle, the team has not yet optimized the energy-conversion efficiency of the system, which remains less than 2 percent. But ratcheting up that efficiency through further optimization should be a straightforward process, the researchers say. “There appears to be no fundamental barrier,” Thompson says.
While today’s commercial solar panels typically have an efficiency of at most 25 percent, a silicon solar cell harnessing singlet fission should make it feasible to achieve efficiency of more than 30 percent, Baldo says — a huge leap in a field typically marked by slow, incremental progress. In solar cell research, he notes, people are striving “for an increase of a tenth of a percent.”
Solar panel efficiencies can also be improved by stacking different solar cells together, but combining solar cells is expensive with conventional solar-cell materials. The new technology instead promises to work as an inexpensive coating on solar cells.
The work made use of a known material, but the team is now exploring new materials that might perform the same trick even better. “The field is working on materials that were chanced upon,” Baldo says — but now that the principles are better understood, researchers can begin exploring possible alternatives in a more systematic way.
Christopher Bardeen, a professor of chemistry at the University of California at Riverside who was not involved in this research, calls this work “very important” and says the process used by the MIT team “represents a first step towards incorporating an exotic photophysical process (fission) into a real device. This achievement will help convince workers in the field that this process has real potential for boosting organic solar cell efficiencies by 25 percent or more.”
The research was performed in the Center for Excitonics and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. MIT has filed for a provisional patent on the technology.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130418140417-1.jpg
ILLUSTRATION: CHRISTINE DANILOFF/MIT
http://gizmodo.com/5995046/graphene-has-a-fatal-flaw
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18l3yqlmm4uvmjpg/original.jpg
Graphene’s Achilles Heel
Jamie Condliffe
Graphene is touted as being the supermaterial to beat all supermaterials—but not so fast! Researchers have discovered a weakness that occurs in many sheets of graphene that renders it half as strong as we thought.
Formed from a single sheet of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal pattern, graphene is often celebrated for its disproportionate strength. But a team of scientists from Rice University ignored the hype and set to thinking about what happens at the very edge of the sheets. In fact, where the layer stops—and it has to at some point—the hexagons are interrupted and five- or seven-atom rings form.
While that might not sound like a big deal, think again: sheets of the stuff grown in a lab are almost never perfect arrays of hexagons. Instead, they're made up of a number of different islands of graphene called grains; where those grains meet, these flaws exist. And when placed under tension, those flaws start to cause problems. Boris Yakobson, one of the researchers, explains to Material Views:
"The details are complicated but, basically... the force is concentrated there, and that's where it starts breaking. Force on these junctions starts the cracks, and they propagate like cracks in a windshield. In metals, cracks stop eventually because they become blunt as they propagate. But in brittle materials, that doesn't happen. And graphene is a brittle material, so a crack might go a really long way."
The result? Imperfect sheets of graphene—which essentially means most of them—have about half the strength of pristine samples of the material. That's not a deal-breaker in terms of its potential uses, of course, but it serves as a good reminder that graphene might not necessarily solve all the world's problems. [Nano Letters via Materials Views]
Still... 100 times the strength of steel ain't bad.
DARPA Looks To New Form Of Computation That Mimics The Human Brain
http://www.33rdsquare.com/2013/04/darpa-looks-to-new-form-of-computation.html?m=1
Scott R. Brown
04-20-2013, 01:18 PM
Still... 100 times the strength of steel ain't bad.
If you steel 100 times and didn't get caught that is not strength, nor good, that is naughty and you should give it all back.
If you steel 100 times and didn't get caught that is not strength, nor good, that is naughty and you should give it all back.
That is so un-american.
MINE!!! I jacked it fair and square. Come get some!
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/04/bio-fab-open-source-language/
Bioengineers Build Open Source Language for Programming Cells
BY DANIELA HERNANDEZ
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dna-1.jpeg
Drew Endy wants to build a programming language for the body.
Endy is the co-director of the International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology — BIOFAB, for short — where he’s part of a team that’s developing a language that will use genetic data to actually program biological cells. That may seem like the stuff of science fiction, but the project is already underway, and the team intends to open source the language, so that other scientists can use it and modify it and perfect it.
The effort is part of a sweeping movement to grab hold of our genetic data and directly improve the way our bodies behave — a process known as bioengineering. With the Supreme Court exploring whether genes can be patented, the bioengineering world is at crossroads, but scientists like Endy continue to push this technology forward.
Genes contain information that defines the way our cells function, and some parts of the genome express themselves in much the same way across different types of cells and organisms. This would allow Endy and his team to build a language scientists could use to carefully engineer gene expression – what they call “the layer between the genome and all the dynamic processes of life.”
According to Ziv Bar-Joseph, a computational biologist at Carnegie Mellon University, gene expression isn’t that different from the way computing systems talk to each other. You see the same behavior in system after system. “That’s also very common in computing,” he says. Indeed, since the ’60s, computers have been built to operate much like cells and other biologically systems. They’re self-contained operations with standard ways of trading information with each other.
The BIOFAB project is still in the early stages. Endy and the team are creating the most basic of building blocks — the “grammar” for the language. Their latest achievement, recently reported in the journal Science, has been to create a way of controlling and amplifying the signals sent from the genome to the cell. Endy compares this process to an old fashioned telegraph.
“If you want to send a telegraph from San Francisco to Los Angeles, the signals would get degraded along the wire,” he says. “At some point, you have to have a relay system that would detect the signals before they completely went to noise and then amplify them back up to keep sending them along their way.”
And, yes, the idea is to build a system that works across different types of cells. In the 90s, the computing world sought to create a common programming platform for building applications across disparate systems — a platform called the Java virtual machine. Endy hopes to duplicate the Java VM in the biological world.
“Java software can run on many different hardware operating system platforms. The portability comes from the Java virtual machine, which creates a common operating environment across a diversity of platforms such that the Java code is running in a consistent local environment,” he says.
“In synthetic biology, the equivalent of a Java virtual machine might be that you could create your own compartment in any type of cell, [so] your engineered DNA wouldn’t run willy-nilly. It would run in a compartment that provided a common sandbox for operating your DNA code.”
According to Endy, this notion began with a group of students from Abraham Lincoln High School in San Francisco a half decade ago, and he’s now calling for a commercial company to recreate Sun Microsystems’ Java vision in the biological world. It’s worth noting, however, that this vision never really came to fruition — and that Sun Microsystems is no more.
Nonetheless, this is what Endy is shooting for — right down to Sun’s embrace of open source software. The BIOFAB language will be freely available to anyone, and it will be a collaborative project.
Progress is slow — but things are picking up. At this point, the team can get cells to express up to ten genes at a time with “very high reliability.” A year ago, it took them more than 700 attempts to coax the cells to make just one. With the right programming language, he says, this should expand to about a hundred or more by the end of the decade. The goal is to make that language insensitive to the output genes so that cells will express whatever genes a user wants, much like the print function on a program works regardless of what set of characters you feed it.
What does he say to those who fear the creation of Frankencells — biological nightmares that will wreak havoc on our world? “It could go wrong. It could hurt people. It could be done irresponsibly. *******s could misuse it. Any number of things are possible. But note that we’re not operating in a vacuum,” he says. “There’s history of good applications being developed and regulations being practical and being updated as the technology advances. We need to be vigilant as things continue to change. It’s the boring reality of progress.”
He believes this work is not only essential, but closer to reality than the world realizes. “Our entire civilization depends on biology. We need to figure out how to partner better with nature to make the things we need without destroying the environment,” Endy says. “It’s a little bit of a surprise to me that folks haven’t come off the sidelines from other communities and helped more directly and started building out this common language for programming life. It kind of matters.”
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=47307
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news_images/47307.jpg
Graphic by Parsian Mohseni
Schematic representation of phase segregated InGaAs/InAs nanowires grown on graphene and single phase InGaAs nanowires grown on a different substrate
Abstract:
When a team of University of Illinois engineers set out to grow nanowires of a compound semiconductor on top of a sheet of graphene, they did not expect to discover a new paradigm of epitaxy.
Nanowires grown on graphene have surprising structure
Champaign, IL | Posted on April 22nd, 2013
The self-assembled wires have a core of one composition and an outer layer of another, a desired trait for many advanced electronics applications. Led by professor Xiuling Li, in collaboration with professors Eric Pop and Joseph Lyding, all professors of electrical and computer engineering, the team published its findings in the journal Nano Letters.
Nanowires, tiny strings of semiconductor material, have great potential for applications in transistors, solar cells, lasers, sensors and more.
"Nanowires are really the major building blocks of future nano-devices," said postdoctoral researcher Parsian Mohseni, first author of the study. "Nanowires are components that can be used, based on what material you grow them out of, for any functional electronics application."
Li's group uses a method called van der Waals epitaxy to grow nanowires from the bottom up on a flat substrate of semiconductor materials, such as silicon. The nanowires are made of a class of materials called III-V (three-five), compound semiconductors that hold particular promise for applications involving light, such as solar cells or lasers.
The group previously reported growing III-V nanowires on silicon. While silicon is the most widely used material in devices, it has a number of shortcomings. Now, the group has grown nanowires of the material indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) on a sheet of graphene, a 1-atom-thick sheet of carbon with exceptional physical and conductive properties.
Thanks to its thinness, graphene is flexible, while silicon is rigid and brittle. It also conducts like a metal, allowing for direct electrical contact to the nanowires. Furthermore, it is inexpensive, flaked off from a block of graphite or grown from carbon gases.
"One of the reasons we want to grow on graphene is to stay away from thick and expensive substrates," Mohseni said. "About 80 percent of the manufacturing cost of a conventional solar cell comes from the substrate itself. We've done away with that by just using graphene. Not only are there inherent cost benefits, we're also introducing functionality that a typical substrate doesn't have."
The researchers pump gases containing gallium, indium and arsenic into a chamber with a graphene sheet. The nanowires self-assemble, growing by themselves into a dense carpet of vertical wires across the surface of the graphene. Other groups have grown nanowires on graphene with compound semiconductors that only have two elements, but by using three elements, the Illinois group made a unique finding: The InGaAs wires grown on graphene spontaneously segregate into an indium arsenide (InAs) core with an InGaAs shell around the outside of the wire.
"This is unexpected," Li said. "A lot of devices require a core-shell architecture. Normally you grow the core in one growth condition and change conditions to grow the shell on the outside. This is spontaneous, done in one step. The other good thing is that since it's a spontaneous segregation, it produces a perfect interface."
So what causes this spontaneous core-shell structure? By coincidence, the distance between atoms in a crystal of InAs is nearly the same as the distance between whole numbers of carbon atoms in a sheet of graphene. So, when the gases are piped into the chamber and the material begins to crystallize, InAs settles into place on the graphene, a near-perfect fit, while the gallium compound settles on the outside of the wires. This was unexpected, because normally, with van der Waals epitaxy, the respective crystal structures of the material and the substrate are not supposed to matter.
"We didn't expect it, but once we saw it, it made sense," Mohseni said.
In addition, by tuning the ratio of gallium to indium in the semiconductor ****tail, the researchers can tune the optical and conductive properties of the nanowires.
Next, Li's group plans to make solar cells and other optoelectronic devices with their graphene-grown nanowires. Thanks to both the wires' ternary composition and graphene's flexibility and conductivity, Li hopes to integrate the wires in a broad spectrum of applications.
"We basically discovered a new phenomenon that confirms that registry does count in van der Waals epitaxy," Li said.
This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Postdoctoral researcher Ashkan Behnam and graduate students Joshua Wood and Christopher English also were co-authors of the paper. Li also is affiliated with the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the Micro and Nanotechnology Lab, and the Frederick Seitz Materials Research Lab, all at the U. of I.
One of my favorite equations in physics, is one of the earliest, force equals mass times acceleration. For objects traveling in a circle the equation is force equals mass times velocity squared divided by radius. This video is a perfect example of that equation.
http://youtu.be/dq6T5BojXc8
Courtesy of David Fuchs.
hskwarrior
04-24-2013, 05:49 PM
This is material coming from a space donkey.
http://digitaljournal.com/img/1/8/1/6/4/9/i/1/0/7/o/Space_Junk_2.jpg
hskwarrior
04-24-2013, 06:02 PM
i wonder what material these space ships are made out of....
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3646/3456744470_da5eb6df67.jpg
Kingston launches a 1 TB pen drive.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XqdMaO9I5sY/UXpcOQXUAZI/AAAAAAAACfo/bmbjCKJeq3s/w497-h373/23909_502141923173153_420997414_n.jpg
****... Moving pretty fast now. I missed that one.
wenshu
04-26-2013, 10:09 AM
Kingston launches a 1 TB pen drive.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-XqdMaO9I5sY/UXpcOQXUAZI/AAAAAAAACfo/bmbjCKJeq3s/w497-h373/23909_502141923173153_420997414_n.jpg
****... Moving pretty fast now. I missed that one.
But it's USB 1.0 . . .
David Jamieson
04-26-2013, 11:12 AM
But it's USB 1.0 . . .
This device could perform faster if you...no it can't it's an obsolete standard! :p
that would be something if it was usb3...or even 2...
I swear I read that it was usb 3.0, backward compatible w/ 2.0 w/ a transfer rate of something like 240/160mb....
And it's pretty expensive.
wenshu
04-26-2013, 01:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk
I got that. Was in response to DJ's usb 3.0 comment. Pretty sure the last gen 512's were only 2.0.
I think I'll be ok with my lil 2TB WD. It's small enough for my needs.
Has anybody used disconnect? If so, what think?
David Jamieson
04-29-2013, 09:55 AM
I swear I read that it was usb 3.0, backward compatible w/ 2.0 w/ a transfer rate of something like 240/160mb....
And it's pretty expensive.
It is USB 3.0
Who in their right mind would make a USB 1 device? lol
"Hey bob, I know a great way to start a pre-failed electronics business!" :p
Scott R. Brown
04-29-2013, 10:43 AM
It is USB 3.0
Who in their right mind would make a USB 1 device? lol
"Hey bob, I know a great way to start a pre-failed electronics business!" :p
If you want your business to fail, all you have to do is get a grant from the Obama administration.
He only gives money to toilet bowls!
If you want your business to fail, all you have to do is get a grant from the Obama administration.
He only gives money to toilet bowls!
Yeah that's why the Tesla car company is paying off the loan way ahead of schedule.
Come on guys, I'm no Obama fan, but you can only dick ride the Solyndra failure for so long. And for the record, Solyndra made GREAT products. But between the head in ass syndrome over here and the cheap crap out of China, they didn't stand much of a chance at being judged on the actual work and their contributions to that particular industry.
If you wanna go there, you need to use the averages within each sector. This administration has a good record in that respect. More success than failure, by far. They can't take credit for all the good and bad, but they can take credit for some. And when it comes to gov loans, they have done pretty well. Nothing compared to the absolute disaster that was the previous administration. I love how the GOP just pretends that never happened. Or just blame it all on 9/11. The best tho is when they say "GW Bush kept us safe." Ummmm.... not counting 9/11, maybe... One could argue that by taking too much aggressive action in various areas that administration increased tensions and created an atmosphere that fostered more hate in the local pop than would have had they done nothing at all. I understand afghanistan, iraq was a joke from day one, and let's not even get into all the mini proxies all over africa. A legacy that obamas admin seems to be ok with. Obama is ok socially... economically he is a corporate ***** and his foreign affairs work is freakin ABOMINABLE. CRIMINAL even. But before the reps chime in with the "yeah!", remember that the last admin and any of the frontrunners would be/were/are just as bad or worse.
All that being said, the correspondents dinner was PR genius.
Scott R. Brown
04-30-2013, 08:15 AM
Give me a break!
Plus ONE......
....MINUS HOW MANY????
Scott R. Brown
04-30-2013, 08:44 AM
Young's America (http://youngsamerica.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/was-it-worth-it-part-2-obamas-list-of-failed-investments/)
Stimulus recipient A123 … failed.
Stimulus recipient Abound Solar … laid off 70 percent of its company.
Stimulus recipient Abound Solar … failed.
Stimulus recipient Amonix … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Azure Dynamics … failed.
Stimulus recipient Bab**** and Brown … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Beacon Power … failed.
Stimulus recipient Brightsource … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Chemical Power … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Compact Power … furloughed workers.
Stimulus recipient Eastern Energy … faltering.
Stimulus recipient ECOtality … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Ener1 … failed.
Stimulus recipient Energy Conversion Devices … failed.
Stimulus recipient Evergreen Solar … fails.
Stimulus recipient First Solar … sold panels to itself.
Stimulus recipient First Solar … slashed 2,000 jobs.
Stimulus recipient First Solar … furloughed pay.
Stimulus recipient Fisker Automotive … laid off lots of workers (its cars also get worse mileage than SUVs).
Stimulus recipient Genesis Poly … failed (twice).
Stimulus recipient Green Vehicles Inc. … failed.
Stimulus recipient GreenVolts … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Johnson Controls … faltering.
Stimulus recipient LSP Energy Systems … failed.
Stimulus recipient Mountain Plaza, Inc. … failed.
Stimulus recipient National Renewable Energy Lab … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Navistar … failed.
Stimulus recipient Nevada Geothermal … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Nordic Windpower … failed.
Stimulus recipient NREL … laid off much of its workforce.
Stimulus recipient Olsen’s Crop Service … failed.
Stimulus recipient Range Fuels … failed.
Stimulus recipient Raser Technologies … failed.
Stimulus recipient Satcon … failed.
Stimulus recipient Schneider Electric … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Solar Trust for America … failed.
Stimulus recipient Solyndra … failed.
Stimulus recipient SpectraWatt … failed.
Stimulus recipient Stirling Energy Systems … failed.
Stimulus recipient Thompson River Power … failed.
Stimulus recipient SunPower … failed.
Stimulus recipient Tesla Motors … is failing.
Stimulus recipient Thompson River Power … failed.
Stimulus recipient Unisolar … failed.
Stimulus recipient Vestas … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Willard & Kelsey Solar Group … laid off 40 employees.
Stimulus recipient Sappire Energy … failed.
Stimulus recipient Cree … received $5.2 million and created 3.02 jobs.
Stimulus recipient Seattle, Wash., was assured 2,000 jobs would be created. Actual result: 14 jobs.
Scott R. Brown
04-30-2013, 08:46 AM
As of October 2012:
Heritage.org (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/)
So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Bab**** and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
I know for sure that tesla motors is NOT failing and is in fact ahead on scheduled payments. So I'm not going to research everything on that list myself, but it certainly makes me question the list as a whole.
Can you post a complete list of and source each one on that list? Otherwise I'm not gonna get into the whole conjecture thing.
Although, let's assume the list is accurate(a point which I do NOT concede). Is this not a great advert for keeping public research funding alive and well. These are all companies looking to profit. Take profit out of the equation and you get all the DATA without all the economic crap. Pure research. Most of the stuff we rely on daily, the things that literally shape our world, has it's roots in publically funded research.
Also, a good chunk of those are solar. They all faced the same problem. It doesn't change the fact that they still had some of the best panels in the world.
Also, while you are at it, since this has a partisan spin on it, why not post up another list for the two previous admins so we can compare. Again, source it or don't bother.
For the record, I don't think loans to privates was the way to go. It's a half assed quick fix bandaid at best, complete waste of money at worst. IMO they could have taken all that money and gave it away as grants and we would actually see real progress DIRECTLY because of the grants starting roughly in ten years or so. All this instant gratification crap is what sunk us in the first place. We're like a bunch of lil *****es when we have to actually wait for something. Sad.
Scott R. Brown
04-30-2013, 06:26 PM
The sources are above the lists.
It doesn't matter whether someone makes the best item or not. The government was trying to dictate economic success by funneling public money to mismanaged companies who do not have a market for their products. It was Obama trying to dictate social values through an artificially created and flawed economic system and pay back his supporters through "crony socialism".
It demonstrated "once again" that the economic cannot be manipulated by the government. Something that any intelligent person, who understands a minimum of how economics works, already knew.
All economies run on capitalism whether people understand it, or want to accept it, or not. The way people make their OWN money in an oppressive economic system is through the black market. The black market is 100% capitalistic. Left to their own natural tendencies, all people are become through a capitalistic black market.
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 07:06 PM
I know for sure that tesla motors is NOT failing and is in fact ahead on scheduled payments. So I'm not going to research everything on that list myself, but it certainly makes me question the list as a whole.
As you should. The first list was from some douche's blog post, the second from Heritage, one of the most ****tastical right wing propaganda machines you can find. They practically have a revolving chair with Fox Noise.
Scott R. Brown
04-30-2013, 07:13 PM
As you should. Heritage is one of the most ****tastical right wing propaganda machines you can find. They practically have a revolving chair with Fox Noise.
You just vaunted your own ignorance for the world to enjoy!
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 07:16 PM
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html?rss=1#.UX-GDiPkhuO.facebook
Apparently the government is not qualified to tell business how to do business, but its perfectly able to tell scientists how to do science. This coming from a moron that thinks if you got sick, its because you didn't pray right...
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 07:19 PM
You just vaunted your own ignorance for the world to enjoy!
So Heritage Foundation isn't a right wing policy spin tank? Funny because they profess about as much on their own web page there bub.
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 07:30 PM
Heritage foundation on same sex marriage. Going against what every child psychology and pediatric health org in the country claim...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage
Heritage foundation on climate science, going against consensus of the climate science community..
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/03/174581/heritage-gonzalez-conspiracy/?mobile=nc
Apparently even other conservative groups think Heritage is off the mark on immigration..
[URL="http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/09/is-team-rubio-working-to-preemptively-undermine-a-heritage-foundation-report/"[/URL]
Nope, they're right wing spin. They once had some cred, now they're just more noise interfering with signal. I don't have to criticize them, they do good enough showing their slant themselves. Anything they put out should be instantly met with skepticism.
The sources are above the lists.
No no. You know what I meant. When I said source each one, I meant each example. Not some conservative think tanks assurance that it's all good. Not to mention the obvious cherry picking.
The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.
I can't believe people actually believe this stuff. These people think they know everything. So dangerous. They have no idea how bad it will get and how fast. One generation of illiterate children is all it takes.
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 07:42 PM
Back to the more important post...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html?rss=1#.UX-GDiPkhuO.facebook
1) This was done before, and it resulted is total stagnation of innovation, layoffs in R&D sectors, and just an in general malaise in scientific progress. Private interests benefit immeasurably from have free, open access to public funded, basic research that they won't do themselves because there is no guarantee of profit.
2) They're hardly qualified to determine this. And frankly, the most beneficial advancements in technology came from people simply doing science for the sake of unpacking the world around us. When Bloch and Purcell developed nuclear magnetic resonance, they didn't care about one day providing an imaging system that would revolutionize health care, they were just interested in chemical structure.
3) Duplication is fundamental in ensuring proper research is performed. Reproducability is integral in the scientific process and it is duplication that often finds the inaccuracies, accidental or even unethical. It is duplication that allows science to determine if a medicine truly is effective and safe. Without duplication in public work, you'd find the exact opposite. Corporate interests would snuff out dissenting data on basis of patent and protecting proprietary interests.
#3 is the brutal.
"So we just received mountains of data that shows oil spills to be beneficial to wildlife, including seafood. Here are all our numbers. You can't reproduce them. You're gonna just have to take our word for it. We swear, it's totally legit. Look... see that credible scientist there with the big smile? He'll swear it's true." :eek:
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 08:04 PM
I can't believe people actually believe this stuff. These people think they know everything. So dangerous. They have no idea how bad it will get and how fast. One generation of illiterate children is all it takes.
See, on one hand they suffer from major Dunning-Kruger. But on the other, on some level way way down in that little place they try to shut out with prayers and ideological mantra, they know they don't understand. And I think that genuinely scares them out of their magic underwear (or whatever choice garments they prefer http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/10/gop-cross-dress.html?cid=88399458 ).
They understand that they're ideologically going the way of the dodo. And I think they're convinced that the only way to stop the train to their own extinction is by trying to blow up the tracks and stop the progress of contradictory knowledge.
We've seen it already. http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UYCGNbWTiSo
Can't hold back the tide. All they can do is lash out and cause undue pain and suffering. Either way, it's obvious that there is a massive downswing in their numbers. It could be reduced to a tiny minority over like two generations. Like in Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke. And considering how fast we're moving technologically, I can see it going down in flames before the end of the century.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.UYCGNbWTiSo[/URL]
"Ummm, there is water in my house that wasn't there before!"
"Uh... no, sir. It's always been like that. You built your house below high tide. Say otherwise and we'll file suit! "
Bans scientific evidence? This hyper partisan crap is getting ridiculous. Truth is, no federally elected officials represent you, and 2/3 of your state reps don't represent you. You may agree on a few things, but they don't worry about you in any meaningful way that you would expect from a civil servant like a fireman or paramedic. But hey, it's just the fate of your whole country at risk. I'm so glad it's not that bad here. Yet anyways... :rolleyes:
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 08:24 PM
Can't hold back the tide. All they can do is lash out and cause undue pain and suffering. Either way, it's obvious that there is a massive downswing in their numbers. It could be reduced to a tiny minority over like two generations. Like in Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke. And considering how fast we're moving technologically, I can see it going down in flames before the end of the century.
This is damaging though. The world is going to progress regardless. But progress has been exponential (although I do think there is an energetic cap to this). The more we stagnate, the more we have to struggle just to catch up. 10 years of dumbing down the populace requires those people 20 years in the other direction just to break even. We can't afford that. And when we do begin hitting the ceiling of progress, and all the crap we've been mismanaging starts coming back to haunt us, then we're left with a populace that is unable to understand how we got there, what we could do before and what the **** we can do then to try and meet those challenges.
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 08:28 PM
but they don't worry about you in any meaningful way that you would expect from a civil servant like a fireman or paramedic.
Hey, lets not forget what they think about firemen...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/07/1014338/-Rick-Perry-slashed-Texas-volunteer-fire-dept-funding-by-75-forest-service-funding-by-a-third
SoCo KungFu
04-30-2013, 08:34 PM
http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/11/09/2012/bioengineering-beer-foam.html
Not earth shattering, but its the small things in life right?
Scott R. Brown
05-01-2013, 04:13 AM
So Heritage Foundation isn't a right wing policy spin tank? Funny because they profess about as much on their own web page there bub.
No that is not what I am saying:
1) I gave two sources, but there are many more. All one needs to do is do a Google search to find plenty of various sources. I just chose two out of many.
2) Your implication what that since you do not agree with the philosophy of the source, their information is wrong. This is a straw man argument. That is like me saying you don't know what you are talking about because you are from Southern California and everyone knows Southern Californians are all nuts!! You know that is incorrect thinking and I know it is incorrect thinking. So, just apply that to my argument.
3) Just because a source is right wing does not make their information false. Your comments about Fox Noise make the same implication as your comment about the Heritage Foundation.
4) When arguing a point, attack the facts not the source; demonstrate the facts as listed are incorrect.
5) Otherwise I can say you are wrong because you are ugly and I am right because I am handsome!!!
Which is, of course, TRUE!!!!!:p;):D
mawali
05-01-2013, 06:36 AM
I distrust and despise this Heritage Foundation re-engineering policies and their ALEC brethren but I have to acknowledge they have done an excellent job with the Southern Strategy and similar projects to create their legislative devisive policies.
When their chief Strategist announced that they do not want all American to vote, that went against whatever the US Constitution stood for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw
They realized that they could not control the country so they had to recycle something from the past so they realized they had to create issues using the US Constitution so they adopted this Southern Strategy. Divide and Conquer, which implies separating the Federal Powers from the States Powers (Rights) and create enough confusion to slip through using legislative process. Again they have done a great job with this.
As an example, we can all agree that people who can afford to pay for health care should do so and their initial (Heritage Foundation) legislative tool was RomneyCare, a positive trend, which they were all for until they were against it, uintil they realized more people liked it then they became more against it when POTUS followed the initial MA Health Care Agenda.
Same with Health Care for Women, where ALEC reframed the agenda to reference abortion claiming PRO CHOICE while passing laws exactly opposite of what they were proclaiming freedom, while getting rid of individual choice of the individual concerned.
wenshu
05-01-2013, 07:05 AM
Stimulus recipient A123 … failed. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/10/16/bankruptcy-latest-troubled-obama-clean-energy-deals-from-solyndra-beacon-power/loeshQsK4xkudsgb9c77uN/story.html
Stimulus recipient Abound Solar … laid off 70 percent of its company.
Stimulus recipient Abound Solar … failed.http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21853854/weld-county-details-investigation-abound-solar
Stimulus recipient Amonix … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Azure Dynamics … failed. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1074610_azure-dynamics-bankrupt-built-ford-transit-connect-electric
Stimulus recipient Bab**** and Brown … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Beacon Power … failed.http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57372189-76/doe-backed-beacon-power-finds-buyer-post-bankruptcy/
Stimulus recipient Brightsource … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Chemical Power … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Compact Power … furloughed workers.
Stimulus recipient Eastern Energy … faltering.
Stimulus recipient ECOtality … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Ener1 … failed.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-08/ener1-battery-maker-seeks-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection.html
Stimulus recipient Energy Conversion Devices … failed.
Stimulus recipient Evergreen Solar … fails. http://bostonherald.com/business/technology/technology_news/2011/08/evergreen_solar_files_bankruptcy_plans_asset_sale
Stimulus recipient First Solar … sold panels to itself.
Stimulus recipient First Solar … slashed 2,000 jobs.
Stimulus recipient First Solar … furloughed pay.
Stimulus recipient Fisker Automotive … laid off lots of workers (its cars also get worse mileage than SUVs).
Stimulus recipient Genesis Poly … failed (twice).http://www.biditup.com/auction/381/STATE+OF+THE+ART+PLASTICS+RECYCLING+FACILITY+Inclu ding+Shredding+Granulating
Stimulus recipient Green Vehicles Inc. … failed.http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110719/NEWS01/107190308/Green-Vehicles-experiment-crashes
Stimulus recipient GreenVolts … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Johnson Controls … faltering.
Stimulus recipient LSP Energy Systems … failed. not a Green Energy Company
Stimulus recipient Mountain Plaza, Inc. … failed.
Stimulus recipient National Renewable Energy Lab … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Navistar … failed. Not a Green Energy company http://www.navistar.com/navistar/ And definitely not failing
Stimulus recipient Nevada Geothermal … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Nordic Windpower … failed.http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/print-edition/2012/10/19/turbine-maker-nordic-windpower-files.html
Stimulus recipient NREL … laid off much of its workforce.
Stimulus recipient Olsen’s Crop Service … failed.
Stimulus recipient Range Fuels … failed.
Stimulus recipient Raser Technologies … failed.http://shareholdersfoundation.com/case/raser-technologies-inc-investors-file-lawsuit-against-certain-directors-and-officers
Stimulus recipient Satcon … failed.
Stimulus recipient Schneider Electric … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Solar Trust for America … failed.
Stimulus recipient Solyndra … failed.
Stimulus recipient SpectraWatt … failed.
Stimulus recipient Stirling Energy Systems … failed.
Stimulus recipient Thompson River Power … failed.
Stimulus recipient SunPower … failed.
Stimulus recipient Tesla Motors … is failing.
Stimulus recipient Thompson River Power … failed.
Stimulus recipient Unisolar … failed.
Stimulus recipient Vestas … faltering.
Stimulus recipient Willard & Kelsey Solar Group … laid off 40 employees.
Stimulus recipient Sappire Energy … failed.
Stimulus recipient Cree … received $5.2 million and created 3.02 jobs.
Stimulus recipient Seattle, Wash., was assured 2,000 jobs would be created. Actual result: 14 jobs.
I only looked up ones that said "failed" and I don't feel like looking up the rest of them but while obviously the list is padded by a fair amount of partisan bull**** (a few weren't even green companies, at least one is very successful and others hadn't even received federal loans, or some combination of the above), the unjustifiably smug dismissal of his sources (douchiness notwithstanding) does appear to be confirmation bias.
Examples that appeared to be bull**** were First Solar which by all appearances seems to be doing quite well and LSP which isn't actually a green energy company and from what I can gather was funded by Series C venture capital. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/04/30/first-solar-shows-textbook-short-squeeze-in-effect/
Navistar isn't even remotely a green energy company.
Also you could make a reasonable arguement that companies that went bankrupt then went on to find funding after the fact aren't necessarily "failed".
A better argument against Brownie's watered down Libertarian 4th grade "me me me me" "Government BAD" argument is to just mention the Billions in subsidies and tax breaks/dodging that the Big Oil companies receive and the successful auto bailout.
SoCo KungFu
05-01-2013, 11:31 AM
No that is not what I am saying:
1) I gave two sources, but there are many more. All one needs to do is do a Google search to find plenty of various sources. I just chose two out of many.
2) Your implication what that since you do not agree with the philosophy of the source, their information is wrong. This is a straw man argument. That is like me saying you don't know what you are talking about because you are from Southern California and everyone knows Southern Californians are all nuts!! You know that is incorrect thinking and I know it is incorrect thinking. So, just apply that to my argument.
3) Just because a source is right wing does not make their information false. Your comments about Fox Noise make the same implication as your comment about the Heritage Foundation.
4) When arguing a point, attack the facts not the source; demonstrate the facts as listed are incorrect.
5) Otherwise I can say you are wrong because you are ugly and I am right because I am handsome!!!
Which is, of course, TRUE!!!!!:p;):D
1) Its not my job to make your argument for you. Pick better sources next time.
2) If by disagreeing with their philosophy, you mean deliberately cherry picking data, using liberal use (as in free use) of editing content to take info out of context for the progression of their own agenda, catering to opinion pieces more than actual data, and being a major conservative special interest group that is not concerned with providing actual analysis but rather that to further their political agenda; then yes I do not agree with their philosophy. That's not a straw-man. I'm not building up a false argument to knock down. If you want an example of straw-man, go to the Heritage foundation website, its full of it. And I'm not from Southern California, that's SoCal. SoCo = South Carolina. Pick better sources next time.
3) No, their information is false because its false. I even googled 3 examples in which their ideological slant presents arguments that are against the data. Its not my problem you used a supremely partisan source with no credibility. As for Fox, when a station is banned from broadcasting in a country because they take too much use of editorialization on their content, I don't have to make an argument. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
Pick better sources next time.
4) Demonstrate the facts are from a source that is not known to present false data and I'll consider it. Particularly when a quick scan of the list presents known falsities, Syn already pointed one out. You seem to not like this concept that you're judged by the credibility of the source of your info. Sorry, but that's reality. Pick better sources next time.
5) Non sequitur. Oh, and pick better sources next time.
A blog post and a special interest group aren't usually the best ways to present an argument. FYI
And I'm right because I'm ugly. Numerous studies have shown a correlation with factual accuracy and poor physical appearance.
SoCo KungFu
05-01-2013, 11:43 AM
I only looked up ones that said "failed" and I don't feel like looking up the rest of them but while obviously the list is padded by a fair amount of partisan bull**** (a few weren't even green companies, at least one is very successful and others hadn't even received federal loans, or some combination of the above), the unjustifiably smug dismissal of his sources (douchiness notwithstanding) does appear to be confirmation bias.
Not really. I have a limited amount of time to play around in my day. Its absolutely no value of my time to sift through a known source of false, partisan info to refute an argument on a kung fu forum. The track record of the source speaks for itself, that's just how things go. That's not confirmation bias, that's acknowledging the probably that the outcome will be such that a number of the proposed claims are incorrect (an outcome you have thus confirmed mind you).
If I walked into a lab meeting and said, I think we should allocate $2500 of this grant on this topic because some guy on a blog post said so, or because I read on Heritage that cancer is because god didn't think you prayed right, what sort of response do you think I'm going to get?
Don't get me wrong, I applaud your patience in sifting through the list. But its in no way surprising that its incorrect. And predicting as such and not wasting my time isn't confirmation bias, its simply not driving down a known dead end.
As far as me being smug...well, yeah that should surprise no one
mawali
05-01-2013, 12:11 PM
ALEC and Heritage have done great work!
Ten California teachers refused to pay their dues despite representation of their Union so they hired some affiliate of American for Something organization, that will represent them meaning they have a right not to pay dues as they so wish. Over time, the Unions will suffer lawsuits, their workplace presence is already at a 30 year low and getting lower so that means the Corporatists will win with no hands. (from the phrase ' winning hands down").
Here it is (Whoop there it is, per the song)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/california-teachers-sue-over-compulsory-union-fees.html
Then people will wake up and try to figure out hat happened, failing to realize that it was them that shot themselves in the foot.:D
wenshu
05-01-2013, 03:00 PM
Not really. I have a limited amount of time to play around in my day. Its absolutely no value of my time to sift through a known source of false, partisan info to refute an argument on a kung fu forum. The track record of the source speaks for itself, that's just how things go. That's not confirmation bias, that's acknowledging the probably that the outcome will be such that a number of the proposed claims are incorrect (an outcome you have thus confirmed mind you).
If I walked into a lab meeting and said, I think we should allocate $2500 of this grant on this topic because some guy on a blog post said so, or because I read on Heritage that cancer is because god didn't think you prayed right, what sort of response do you think I'm going to get?
Don't get me wrong, I applaud your patience in sifting through the list. But its in no way surprising that its incorrect. And predicting as such and not wasting my time isn't confirmation bias, its simply not driving down a known dead end.
But it wasn't all incorrect. Thats my point. Confirmation bias works both ways. Just because you don't feel like vetting the sources yourself doesn't mean you can dismiss it wholesale. Well, you can but it makes you an unequivocal hypocrite considering that it is the very thing you are railing against in the first place; a refusal to accept facts that are contrary to one's predefined beliefs.
I get it, your time is very important and can't be wasted vetting sources in a forum discussion, the same forum discussion that you compare to vetting research grant allocations.
No that is not what I am saying:
1) I gave two sources, but there are many more. All one needs to do is do a Google search to find plenty of various sources. I just chose two out of many.
2) Your implication what that since you do not agree with the philosophy of the source, their information is wrong. This is a straw man argument. That is like me saying you don't know what you are talking about because you are from Southern California and everyone knows Southern Californians are all nuts!! You know that is incorrect thinking and I know it is incorrect thinking. So, just apply that to my argument.
3) Just because a source is right wing does not make their information false. Your comments about Fox Noise make the same implication as your comment about the Heritage Foundation.
4) When arguing a point, attack the facts not the source; demonstrate the facts as listed are incorrect.
5) Otherwise I can say you are wrong because you are ugly and I am right because I am handsome!!!
Which is, of course, TRUE!!!!!:p;):D
Personally, I stopped reading the list when I saw contradictions with samples I am familiar with. Otherwise, like I said... I'm not gonna research each one just to win teh internetz. That and the obvious cherry picking. The numbers I wanna see are the legit, legal, on record type numbers. Not always an easy task, but I trust their interim reports more than I trust the source quoting a source that quoted a source that quoted a source that quoted a source. I mean, I'm not going to just assume everyone that reposts something actually does their homework. And, in the case of publically funded projects and bailout loans, the numbers are usually made available at some point in a reasonable time. Not always though... unfortunately.
You also have to look at how they came to their conclusions. How the data was interpreted. If you give a company 500 million and the next month their valued at 450 million, that doesn't automatically mean they are failing. Not everyone is all up in the instant gratification ****. Some captains actually look ahead. Sometimes short term pains = long term gains. Just like how sometimes short term gains can = long term pain.
A better argument against Brownie's watered down Libertarian 4th grade "me me me me" "Government BAD" argument is to just mention the Billions in subsidies and tax breaks/dodging that the Big Oil companies receive and the successful auto bailout.
I say drop the loans altogether. Public grants for research, all open source. Let companies make their own way. If big oil can't survive w/o corporate welfare, then let em fall. I'm ok with publicly funded small business loans, but only if they are managed locally. The loans, that is, not the business. Well both, I guess.
Calling a business "too big too fail" is like saying "keep your profits, if you screw up really bad we'll cover your losses". I'm not ok with that. Infact, if I had it may way you wouldn't be allowed to even get that big. I'm pretty set on what I feel should be public and what should be private. Anything that has that much power should not be in the hands of so few. Constitutionally, that is un-American. Given the scale, banking should be public. At the very least the central system should be 100% public. Americans say they hate kings, but they don't seem to mind living in a plutocracy. Kinda hypocritical doncha think? Sounds like the philosophy of the ambitious types w/o the blood to be a king. It's only unfair cause they can't do it. But if I can get rich and **** on people, what's wrong with that? :rolleyes:
But it wasn't all incorrect. Thats my point. Confirmation bias works both ways. Just because you don't feel like vetting the sources yourself doesn't mean you can dismiss it wholesale. Well, you can but it makes you an unequivocal hypocrite considering that it is the very thing you are railing against in the first place; a refusal to accept facts that are contrary to one's predefined beliefs.
I get it, your time is very important and can't be wasted vetting sources in a forum discussion, the same forum discussion that you compare to vetting research grant allocations.
I don't think it is wrong to dismiss something as unsupported when it is indeed unsupported. That isn't saying that everything is wrong. That coupled with the samples I was already familiar with being incorrect was more than enough to call the list "suspect". Why would anyone, in this context, take the time? Ya know? Like I said before... I couldn't be bothered to go through the whole list, but it was clearly a partisan list. And wrong in at least some of the cases.
It's also worth noting that most of these "think tanks" start with a conclusion and then just work backwards doing what they need to do to support their conclusion. That's just not how I roll. I'm all for having an informed discussion with legit datasets available, but I'm not going to go out of my way to create that scenario on a kung fu website. :)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grover.html
SoCo KungFu
05-02-2013, 12:10 PM
But it wasn't all incorrect. Thats my point. Confirmation bias works both ways. Just because you don't feel like vetting the sources yourself doesn't mean you can dismiss it wholesale. Well, you can but it makes you an unequivocal hypocrite considering that it is the very thing you are railing against in the first place; a refusal to accept facts that are contrary to one's predefined beliefs.
I get it, your time is very important and can't be wasted vetting sources in a forum discussion, the same forum discussion that you compare to vetting research grant allocations.
Not really. The source (Heritage) is vetted. They have a history of presenting false data. That's not my problem to deal with. Nor is it the matter that they're conservative, there are a number of credible, conservative sources out there that could have been picked from and at least the info could be trusted tentatively to not be intently falsified. Nor do I care if a study is necessarily performed by a conservative group. There's been an number of times conservatives have funded projects with an agenda, but scientists aren't all bad. When those scientists do find results that are contrary to the ideology of their employers, they still have integrity and often present it as is, because contrary to popular belief, scientific integrity in the community is often more important than the paycheck. But Heritage isn't in the business of bringing in experts to deliver non-bias analysis. They're a known spin machine. Honestly, I have no concerns over the politics of the argument here at the moment, what I was calling out was the source. My original comment was to Syn, confirming that he should question the validity of the info given where it came from. That is a question you verified.
I get it you don't think its proper. This is a selection bias, but it is not confirmation bias. Nor is all bias bad. Bias can keep us from wasting limited time on BS, running down rabbit holes.
SoCo KungFu
05-02-2013, 12:24 PM
I say drop the loans altogether. Public grants for research, all open source.
Not all loans are bad. There are simply a number of things that public research cannot do in any appreciable efficiency. Public is great for basic research. But when it comes time to apply that knowledge, "swaying" a private company to throw some of their greater resources (manpower, technology and equipment, etc.) towards a problem or a product, is often the most expedient (and many times cheapest) way of going about solving a problem or bringing about a new technology.
Some things the public just can't do. Either the expertise just isn't there or the equipment isn't up to par. This is especially true in academia, which a large share of public research. There's only so much you can do as a grad student while learning and universities can have state of the art equipment, but that access is not easy to come by.
Both have their place. I'd like to see a greater emphasis on public work. The returns aren't always obvious but in addition to improving basic research which is the driver of science, it also provides training for people who will eventually go on to fill positions in either facet. And with public work, you don't have the same risk of having something go so toxic but no way (or no political will) to stop it, like say the F-35 project. But private institutions do have their place. There's no way a public source could take a compound that's found to have medicinal value, create 4000 different similar structured compounds, and then spend years testing each of them to compare efficiency and safety. But this happens all the time in private industry.
Edit: and when I say basic, I mean fundamental. Not simple or lesser. Einstein's work was "basic" research.
Not all loans are bad. There are simply a number of things that public research cannot do in any appreciable efficiency. Public is great for basic research. But when it comes time to apply that knowledge, "swaying" a private company to throw some of their greater resources (manpower, technology and equipment, etc.) towards a problem or a product, is often the most expedient (and many times cheapest) way of going about solving a problem or bringing about a new technology.
Some things the public just can't do. Either the expertise just isn't there or the equipment isn't up to par. This is especially true in academia, which a large share of public research. There's only so much you can do as a grad student while learning and universities can have state of the art equipment, but that access is not easy to come by.
Both have their place. I'd like to see a greater emphasis on public work. The returns aren't always obvious but in addition to improving basic research which is the driver of science, it also provides training for people who will eventually go on to fill positions in either facet. And with public work, you don't have the same risk of having something go so toxic but no way (or no political will) to stop it, like say the F-35 project. But private institutions do have their place. There's no way a public source could take a compound that's found to have medicinal value, create 4000 different similar structured compounds, and then spend years testing each of them to compare efficiency and safety. But this happens all the time in private industry.
Edit: and when I say basic, I mean fundamental. Not simple or lesser. Einstein's work was "basic" research.
Publicly funded science should be on the frontiers. They should be there to pave the way for commercial enterprise to step in, use the ideas and make the moniez. What I meant is that I am not for loans to privates in those areas. Not from a scientific perspective. Economically, well that's a bit different. And if things like Solyndra taught us anything, it's that when selling science, it's never a question of just quality. I would love it if that's how it worked, but unfortunately that is just not the case.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/teen-kiera-wilmot-expelled-science-experiment-bomb
And now this... :rolleyes:
Fox news... keepin it classy, as usual.
Maybe we should make a war on science thread. It's one thing to say there are things science can't explain, but it's just straight up crazy to blame the scientific revolution for things like the holocaust. I'm sure all that blood libel **** (and the like) had nothing to do with it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/02/fox-news-guest-scientific-enlightenment-and-reason-led-to-the-holocaust/
Anyways....
http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/technology_technologyover.html
Some solar for ya!
http://youtu.be/-KxjVlaLBmk
Love the re-grip on the phone. Gettin' there.
Rats Communicate Through Brain Chips
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/511721/rats-communicate-through-brain-chips/
Japanese researchers succeed in making generations of mouse clones
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/r-jrs030613.php
Scientists Enhance Intelligence of Mice with Human Brain Cells
http://io9.com/5988969/scientists-enhance-intelligence-of-mice-with-human-brain-cells
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-kL6pwJTdlGs/UYOFeoZ6dDI/AAAAAAAAKUM/UX7T1mFpImg/w497-h373/oragutan.jpg
Spear fishin'.... *****es....!!!
Lucas
05-06-2013, 10:26 AM
Why you follow me on my weekends and take pictures of my spread eagle spear fishin technique?
Why you follow me on my weekends and take pictures of my spread eagle spear fishin technique?
Cause I sat at your door for 3 years and you still wouldn't accept me as a student....!!!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514581/government-lab-reveals-quantum-internet-operated-continuously-for-over-two-years/
BBC Horizon/PBS Nova THE PLEASURE OF FINDING THINGS OUT, Richard Feynman Interview (1981)
http://youtu.be/FXiOg5-l3fk
Feynman was the man! Too bad he died at a young 69. He had so much to offer.
Here's a clip from the vid. Feynman on "honors". Love it. A nobel laureate that doesn't care about being a nobel laureate. Now that's being secure. Do what you love for the love of it. So many say it, so few mean it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg
Ok... this is pretty cool...
Bioteeth From Stem-Cells Will Regrow Complete Teeth, Superior to Implants
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5506/20130312/bioteeth-stemcells-will-regrow-complete-tooth-superior-implants.htm
SoCo KungFu
05-16-2013, 07:05 PM
Scientists Clone Human Embryos To Make Stem Cells
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/05/15/183916891/scientists-clone-human-embryos-to-make-stem-cells
SoCo KungFu
05-16-2013, 07:21 PM
Reading on atmospheric [CO2] broke 400 ppm at the Mauna Loa Observatory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22491491
Scientists Clone Human Embryos To Make Stem Cells
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/05/15/183916891/scientists-clone-human-embryos-to-make-stem-cells
Wow, that's a huge deal. I hear extracting stem cells is rather... ummmm... "uncomfortable". It's cool that you could just clone your own.
GeneChing
05-17-2013, 10:26 AM
What Lies Ahead for 3-D Printing?
The new technology promises a factory in every home—and a whole lot more (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/What-Lies-Ahead-for-3-D-Printing-204136931.html)
I'm not going to post it all here. I read it in print this morning. Follow the link if you don't get the mag. It's a nice overview, very Smithsonian...
SoCo KungFu
05-17-2013, 12:17 PM
I've still yet to see anything convincing in the way of arguing 3D printing will be any different than any other techno innovation with regards to environmental impact. Most of the potential pros are in some way contingent on consumer behavior. And nearly every example of that shows that easier, cheaper consumption leads to increased waste.
Yeah... not too long ago they(you know, the people that do the things!) printed out a piece to help reconstruct like almost half of a mans face.
3D printing won't replace injection molds anytime soon, but for one offs and custom work it's absolutely wonderful to have this option.
If you want a high end printer you gotta throw down some serious duckets, but the Replicator2 isn't bad and it's around 2 grand. I was thinking of just making one. It's just a cnc in an enclosure. Not a big deal. If I do go with something like the replicator I will mos def do some customizing. That's one of the best things about the replicators... they are very easy to modify. They aren't really for people who don't have the skills to write code and build hardware. If you don't understand EXACTLY how they work, best to get some bull**** like the 3D Cube or whatever. They are nowhere near as good, but much more "customer friendly". They are in a class we makers refer to as the "weakest link" class. :p There comes a time when your skill level gets to a point to where "user friendly" becomes a negative.
I've still yet to see anything convincing in the way of arguing 3D printing will be any different than any other techno innovation with regards to environmental impact. Most of the potential pros are in some way contingent on consumer behavior. And nearly every example of that shows that easier, cheaper consumption leads to increased waste.
It is WAY less efficient than injection molding. If you wanna make money mass producing a product, 3D is NOT the way to go. If you need custom parts on the fly in the lab or at home, it's all about 3D printing.
SoCo KungFu
05-17-2013, 01:56 PM
It is WAY less efficient than injection molding. If you wanna make money mass producing a product, 3D is NOT the way to go. If you need custom parts on the fly in the lab or at home, it's all about 3D printing.
I was more referring to the idea that as this technology advances, it will become cheaper and more accessible to individuals for home use. It seems like people envision this day that eventually people will be buying material and simply printing what they need around the house instead of going to Walmart for every little thing. And if that happens, I don't want to even think about the polymers loading up the dumps from waste.
And lab work is another concern. You don't want to know how much plastics we have to chunk in biomed research, like pipettes and such; because we can't reuse this stuff since its now contaminated and recycling centers won't take it because its now technically biowaste. At least with glassware, we can autoclave and keep reusing stuff.
Word.
Also...
In my experience, it rarely works out the way you want on the first time around. Scale can be a *****. I mos def need to work on my blender skills.
I wouldn't want to print everything I need. Huge pain in the ass and quality can be an issue, Sometimes it's better to go a different route. But I love having the ability to make parts on the fly, even if they are just temporary. Can't wait to get my own.
More printing news...
Solar panels. Big ones!
http://www.33rdsquare.com/2013/05/inexpensive-flexible-solar-panels.html
SoCo KungFu
05-17-2013, 03:27 PM
More printing news...
Solar panels. Big ones!
http://www.33rdsquare.com/2013/05/inexpensive-flexible-solar-panels.html
That's cool, but I happen to know of an organic chemist at Carnegie Mellon (he's an alum from my undergrad university) that recently got an appointment to do his research on organic photoreactive polymers that can be used as actual paint (as opposed to the super thin solar panels) that can store and conduct electrical current. In essence, turning your entire roof, wall, whatever into a giant solar cell. Or the opposite, flip a switch and the entire ceiling becomes your light bulb. I told him to scratch those ideas though and profit off vanity, and make a better photoreactive tattoo ink :D
Yeah I saw that. Dunno if it was your friend. I know the paint has been around for awhile. I assume many are working on it by now.
Both have things the other doesn't as far as meeting application requirements.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/13/north_carolina_tesla_ban_bill_would_prevent_unfair _competition_with_car.html
Tesla is kicking so much ass that dealers fear them and their model. So much for the failure on that bailout list.
BTW, they are still WAY ahead of schedule on that loan repayment.
So much for the whole free market republican ideal. How dare you not mark up your price with middle men. The horror!!!
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas
This ****in guy.... Peer review should be fun.
We'll see. If it was just Focardi I would pay a lil more attention.
Ok... There is this...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/fear-erasing-drugs/
http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/
if you're interested in this thread, chances are you will do really well. So the quiz isn't really anything worth doing. But the article attached is interesting. On one question only 20% of those polled got it right. I don't expect everyone to know everything, but you would think they would get that one right.
Illegal numbers: Can you break the law with math?
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/155805-illegal-numbers-can-you-break-the-law-with-math
Marijuana: The Next Diabetes Drug?
http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/marijuana-the-next-diabetes-drug/#ixzz2UBbEl5Ij
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/solving-a-semiconductor-riddle-0524.html
Solving a semiconductor riddle
New observations of material disprove leading theory about LED brightness, opening new avenues for research.
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) continue to transform technology, whether it’s through the high-resolution glow of flat-screen televisions or light bulbs that last for years. The high efficiency and versatility of LEDs make them increasingly popular, but their full potential remains limited, in part because of remaining mysteries about the exact light-emission mechanism in the semiconducting materials.
One significant controversy surrounds the reason for the high-intensity light output from a leading LED semiconductor material, indium gallium nitride (InGaN): Researchers have been split on whether or not indium-rich clusters form within the material and provide the LED’s remarkable efficiency. Now, researchers from MIT and Brookhaven National Laboratory have demonstrated definitively that clustering is not the cause. The results, published online in Applied Physics Letters, advance fundamental understanding of LED technology and could open new research pathways.
“This discovery helps solve a significant mystery in the field of LED research, and demonstrates breakthrough experimental techniques that can advance other sensitive and cutting-edge electronics,” says Silvija Gradečak, the Thomas Lord Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT and a co-author on the study. “The work brings us closer to truly mastering solid-state technologies that could supply light and energy with unprecedented efficiency.”
Mastering those technologies could have significant consequences: Gradečak points out that about 14 percent of electricity generated in the United States is used for lighting, so a dramatic increase in the efficiency of lighting could help bring about a corresponding reduction in electricity usage.
Building a better bulb
Conventional incandescent light bulbs convert only about 5 percent of their energy into visible light, with the rest lost as heat. Fluorescent lights push that efficiency up to about 20 percent, still wasting 80 percent of the electricity used. In both cases, light is the byproduct of heat-generating reactions, rather than the principal effect, making them inherently inefficient.
“Solid-state lights convert electric current directly into photons,” says Eric Stach, leader of the Electron Microscopy Group at Brookhaven’s Center for Functional Nanomaterials (CFN) and a co-author on the study. “The efficiency of this process could, in theory, be nearly perfect, but the experimental realization has not reached those levels. That disconnect helped motivate this study.”
InGaN is particularly promising for practical LED applications, but there was “a longstanding mystery of why this material was so bright, despite the fact it contains a very high density of structural defects,” Gradečak says. Some researchers had analyzed the material with electron microscopes, which use powerful electron beams, and found indium-rich clusters within the material. While some thought those were the cause of the bright emissions, others thought they were artifacts caused by the electron beam itself, and were not normally present in the InGaN layers.
To solve the mystery, what was needed was a way of observing the material that did not use such high-energy beams and could not cause the material to decompose into these clusters. Instruments available at Brookhaven “changed the way we could test these promising materials,” Gradečak says. “The CFN’s aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscope opened a new and nondestructive window into the LED samples. For the first time, we could get Angstrom-level details — that’s one-tenth of one nanometer — without the risk of the imaging process affecting the sample.”
No clusters found
Postdocs Kamal Baloch of MIT, the lead author of the study, and Aaron Johnston-Peck of CFN actually applied these imaging techniques to the same samples that first launched the controversy over clustering, helping resolve the issue.
“We found that the indium-rich clusters do not actually exist in these samples, even though they remain efficient light-emitters,” Baloch says. That settled the question of whether they were the cause of the bright emissions.
“The important point is that we’ve established a foolproof method for investigating InGaN materials,” Baloch says. “We can use these nondestructive imaging techniques to explore the fundamental relationship between cluster formation and light emission to help unlock the secrets of this amazing alloy.”
By using this imaging technique, “We showed this process did not produce artifacts,” Gradečak says. That means the real cause of the material’s bright light “remains to be understood,” but one dominant theory has now been ruled out.
Sir Colin Humphreys, a professor and director of research in the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in this work, says, “This paper finally solves a longstanding dispute” as to why this type of LEDs are so bright. “This paper definitively shows” that the explanation based on indium clusters was wrong, he says.
“This is an important piece of work which has been carefully and meticulously performed,” he says. “It finally puts an end to this debate, which has raged for the last 10 years.”
InGaN will likely remain a leading material for LEDs, but “even though commercial LEDs are very bright, their efficiency is still below what has theoretically been predicted,” Baloch says. “That’s why there is so much interest in figuring out” exactly what accounts for their superior brightness. “Unless we pin down the mechanism, we will not be able to achieve better efficiency,” Baloch adds.
The research was supported by the MIT Center for Excitonics, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Material from a Brookhaven National Laboratory press release was incorporated in this story.
More on Graphene
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl303920b
Balance is key to making quantum-dot solar cells work
MIT team finds that the ratio of component atoms is vital to performance.
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130524111120-0.jpg
This illustration shows a lead sulfide quantum dot array. Each quantum dot (the colored clusters) is 'passivated' by molecules that bind to its surface. Dots that are made up of unequal amounts of lead and sulfur tend to cause electrons (shown in red) to become highly localized, which can substantially lower the electrical transport of the device.
There has been great interest in recent years in using tiny particles called quantum dots to produce low-cost, easily manufactured, stable photovoltaic cells. But, so far, the creation of such cells has been limited by the fact that in practice, quantum dots are not as good at conducting an electric charge as they are in theory.
Something in the physical structure of these cells seems to trap their electric-charge carriers (known as electrons and holes), but researchers have been hard-pressed to figure out exactly what. Now, for the most widely used type of quantum dots, made of compounds called metal chalcogenides, researchers from MIT may have found the key: The limiting factor seems to be off-kilter ratios of the two basic components that make up the dots.
The new findings — by Jeffrey Grossman, the Carl Richard Soderberg Associate Professor of Power Engineering, materials science and engineering graduate student Donghun Kim, and two other researchers — were reported this month in the journal Physical Review Letters.
In bulk quantities of lead sulfide, the material used for the quantum dots in this study, the ratio (known by chemists as “stoichiometry”) of lead atoms to sulfur atoms is exactly 1-to-1. But in the minuscule quantities of the material used to make quantum dots — which, in this case, were about 5 nanometers, or billionths of a meter, across — this ratio can vary significantly, a factor that had not previously been studied in detail. And, the researchers found, it turns out that this ratio is the key to determining the electrical properties of the material.
When the stoichiometry is a perfect 1-to-1, the quantum dots work best, providing the exact semiconductor behavior that theory predicts. But if the ratio is off in either direction — a bit more lead or a bit more sulfur — the behavior changes dramatically, impeding the solar cell’s ability to conduct charges.
Taking care of dangling bonds
Grossman explains that every atom inside the material has neighboring atoms on all sides, so all of that atom’s potential bonds are used, but some surface atoms don’t have neighbors, so their bonds can react with other atoms in the environment. These missing bonds, sometimes called “dangling bonds,” have been thought to play a critical role in a quantum dot’s electronic properties.
As a result, the consensus in the field has been that the best devices will have what is known as full “passivation”: the addition of extra molecules that bind to any loose atomic bonds on the material’s surface. The idea was that adding more of the passivating material (called ligands) would always improve performance, but that didn’t work as scientists had expected: Sometimes it improved performance, but sometimes it made it worse.
“That was the traditional view that people believed,” says Kim, who was the paper’s lead author. But now it turns out that “how many dangling bonds the quantum dot has is not always important, as it doesn’t really affect the density of trap states — at least in lead-and-sulfur-based dots.” So, if a given dot already has an exact 1-to-1 ratio, adding ligands makes it worse, Kim says.
The new research solves the mystery of why that is: Computer simulations reveal that there is an optimum amount of passivating material, an amount that neutralizes exactly enough of these loose bonds to counterbalance any discrepancy in the stoichiometry, restoring an effective 1-to-1 balance. Too much or too little passivating material, and the imbalance remains, or even increases, reducing the efficiency of the material.
Great potential for solar cells
There has been “a lot of excitement” about the potential for quantum dots in applications including electronic devices, lighting and solar cells, Grossman says. Among other potential advantages, quantum-dot solar cells could be made in a low-temperature process, by depositing material from a solution at room temperature, rather than the high-temperature, energy-intensive processes used for conventional photovoltaics. In addition, such devices could be precisely “tuned,” to obtain maximum conversion of specific wavelengths (colors) of light to energy, by adjusting the size and shape of the particles.
To go beyond the efficiencies achieved so far with quantum-dot solar cells, Grossman says, researchers needed to understand why the charges got trapped in the material. “We found something quite different than what people thought was causing the problem,” he says.
“We hope this will inspire experimenters to look at this in new ways,” he adds.
Figuring out how to apply this knowledge, and how to produce quantum dots with well-controlled elemental ratios, will be “challenging,” Grossman says, “but there are a number of ways of controlling the surface.”
The discovery came as a pleasant surprise, Kim says, noting that the researchers unexpectedly observed the origin of trap states as they were studying the way surface treatments would affect the material. But now that they have found this key factor, he says, they know what their goal is in further research: “The electrons will be happy when the distribution … is just right,” he says.
Giulia Galli, a professor of physics and chemistry at the University of California at Davis who was not connected with this research, says it is “quite a creative and important piece of work,” and adds that, “I'm pretty sure this will stimulate new experiments” to engineer the stoichiometry of quantum dots in order to control their properties.
In addition to Kim and Grossman, the work was carried out by former MIT postdoc Joo-Hyoung Lee, now at the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea, and Dong-Ho Kim of the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology (SAIT) in Cambridge, Mass. The work was supported by SAIT, and is part of a larger quantum-dot solar cell program within the SAIT-MIT alliance that includes professors Vladimir Bulovic and Moungi Bawendi.
NEW STANFORD NANOSCAVENGERS COULD USHER IN NEXT GENERATION WATER PURIFICATION
New synthetic nanoparticle could disinfect, depollute, and desalinate contaminated water and then get removed magnetically.
http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/new-stanford-nanoscavengers-could-usher-next-generation-water-purification
NEW BATTERY DESIGN COULD HELP SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY POWER THE GRID
Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University have designed a low-cost, long-life battery that could enable solar and wind energy to become major suppliers to the electrical grid.
http://engineering.stanford.edu/news/new-battery-design-could-help-solar-wind-energy-power-grid
Storage is a real hurdle. At this point, I wouldn't advise anybody to drop off the grid if it's available to them. When isolated you do what you gotta do, but when you have access it's much more efficient to just feed the grid when you can with your alternate sources and take your mains as if you had no alternates. It's more of an economic idea than a green one at this point. Basically you become a supplier. But if we can have efficient local storage then you can really be independent.
Some folks are also doing some really cool stuff with converting heat to energy. Even if you live in a frozen wasteland there is still more than enough heat to spare 24/7. Might be a good way to augment solar. Ideally we would like to eliminate the whole concept of longer term storage. Generate as needed and use more caps. Not there yet.
Senate rejects GM food labeling amendment to farm bill
Bernie Sanders of Vermont says he will continue to push for declaration on packaging of genetically modified ingredients (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/senate-gm-food-labeling-farm-bill?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position16)
Anyone here Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) argue against the amendment? State's shouldn't have the right to label food above and beyond what is federally required because....... GMO's are good? Mhm.... And?
The US Senate is an even bigger joke than the Canadian Senate. They don't even try anymore. They just get up and say something... anything... then vote how they were paid to vote.
The whole GMO thing is pretty complicated all considering. But if people want to know, they should have that right. I realize they don't want people to see that 99% of what they consume has GMOs and panic, but that cat is out of the bag. Hiding the truth just gives the conspiracy nuts more ammo. A lot of misconceptions in the whole organic debate.
3D Printing: Food in Space
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/home/feature_3d_food.html
http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/12/sbir/phase1/SBIR-12-1-H12.04-9357.html?solicitationId=SBIR_12_P1
mawali
05-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Senate rejects GM food labeling amendment to farm bill
Bernie Sanders of Vermont says he will continue to push for declaration on packaging of genetically modified ingredients (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/senate-gm-food-labeling-farm-bill?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position16)
Anyone here Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) argue against the amendment? State's shouldn't have the right to label food above and beyond what is federally required because....... GMO's are good? Mhm.... And?
The US Senate is an even bigger joke than the Canadian Senate. They don't even try anymore. They just get up and say something... anything... then vote how they were paid to vote.
The whole GMO thing is pretty complicated all considering. But if people want to know, they should have that right. I realize they don't want people to see that 99% of what they consume has GMOs and panic, but that cat is out of the bag. Hiding the truth just gives the conspiracy nuts more ammo. A lot of misconceptions in the whole organic debate.
If you want a diamond of the highest quality or a gem of the purest grade, you have it certified to make sure it isn't a fraud and that you pay for what you get.
Citizens United was legalized by the Constitutional Monarchy (the SUpreme Court of US) so that corporations will be paid back the money they forked out for those like Mrs Stabenow who tow the line against the people. So much for by the people, of the people and for the people:D
David Jamieson
05-27-2013, 11:30 AM
i r confused by this:
"Citizens United was legalized by the Constitutional Monarchy (the SUpreme Court of US)"
There is no constitutional monarchy in the USA. It's a republic. Whole different model.
i r confused by this:
There is no constitutional monarchy in the USA. It's a republic. Whole different model.
I think he was being cheeky. Not many straight up Constitutional Monarchies left. Like in Canada we're a Constitutional Monarchy and Federal Parliamentary Democracy. The former being a formality at this point.
I never understood the diamond thing. I can have a flawed diamond that left Africa up some dudes ass... or I can have a flawless one that is WAY cheaper. Easy choice for me. I couldn't care less about all that other bull****. A manufactured diamond is a real diamond. And a better diamond in every way shape and form.
As for the food labelling. I am all for it because I think any state(or province) should be able to make laws that go above and beyond federal laws, as long as they are constitutional, w/o interference from corporate interests at the federal level. My feelings about this have nothing to do with GMOs. Although I do find it sad that we, a people who have too much food, are trying to shut down groups who make it actually POSSIBLE to feed the world. The organic thing was popularized because of ddt. We are over that hump and there are programs in place to make sure that doesn't happen again. To demonize all GMOs because of ignorant rantings by hippy dropouts is just arrogant and downright embarrassing. That isn't to say I don't have issues with GMOs and especially their business model in some cases, but I'm not going to **** on the whole industry because of it.
Some organic retards actually believe that they don't use pesticides. Even worse when they believe all synthetic pesticides are worse for you than the natural ones. ****ing idiots. It's so sad how far we have sunk when it comes to scientific literacy and disseminating information properly. People constantly parrot ideas that appeal to them and they NEVER actually do any research on their own. Their idea of research is reading a book written by a guy who agrees with them. No fact checking, nothing. Sad...
SoCo KungFu
05-27-2013, 04:54 PM
I think he was being cheeky. Not many straight up Constitutional Monarchies left. Like in Canada we're a Constitutional Monarchy and Federal Parliamentary Democracy. The former being a formality at this point.
I never understood the diamond thing. I can have a flawed diamond that left Africa up some dudes ass... or I can have a flawless one that is WAY cheaper. Easy choice for me. I couldn't care less about all that other bull****. A manufactured diamond is a real diamond. And a better diamond in every way shape and form.
As for the food labelling. I am all for it because I think any state(or province) should be able to make laws that go above and beyond federal laws, as long as they are constitutional, w/o interference from corporate interests at the federal level. My feelings about this have nothing to do with GMOs. Although I do find it sad that we, a people who have too much food, are trying to shut down groups who make it actually POSSIBLE to feed the world. The organic thing was popularized because of ddt. We are over that hump and there are programs in place to make sure that doesn't happen again. To demonize all GMOs because of ignorant rantings by hippy dropouts is just arrogant and downright embarrassing. That isn't to say I don't have issues with GMOs and especially their business model in some cases, but I'm not going to **** on the whole industry because of it.
Some organic retards actually believe that they don't use pesticides. Even worse when they believe all synthetic pesticides are worse for you than the natural ones. ****ing idiots. It's so sad how far we have sunk when it comes to scientific literacy and disseminating information properly. People constantly parrot ideas that appeal to them and they NEVER actually do any research on their own. Their idea of research is reading a book written by a guy who agrees with them. No fact checking, nothing. Sad...
Ah yep, the good ol' naturalistic fallacy. I'm trying to decide what would be more preferable, remaining part of civilization with all the ultra religious, ultra conservative nut jobs and their Alex Jones false flag BS. Or throwing in my lot with the also ridiculous ultra left wing, anti-medicine, anti-vaccine, etc. granola eating conspiracy nutters that think crystals sing and that aliens will come and save the select few from human born planetary annihilation. I think it might come down to which side has the best beer.
Tough call.
No matter where I live I will always have at least one foot in a country that has public healthcare. :)
Motorola shows off insane electronic tattoo and 'vitamin authentication' prototype wearables
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/29/4377892/motorola-shows-electronic-tattoo-and-vitamin-authentication-prototypes
a pill from Proteus Digital Health that you can swallow and which is then powered by the acid in your stomach. Once ingested, it creates an 18-bit signal in your body — and thereby makes your entire person an "authentication token."
Now that's thinking out of the box.
mawali
05-29-2013, 09:05 PM
i r confused by this:
There is no constitutional monarchy in the USA. It's a republic. Whole different model.
That IS the point! The Supreme Court has been deciding legal issues for the past 10 years but the trickery is the the people are tricked into believeing they are free and the kicker works! Since when do corporations have a right to use the Supreme Court as a way to control the people, how they are hired and who is to insure them? And it is all legal!
The forefathers of USA actually campaigned against this, but now it is LAW! I' m shocked you didn't see it. Freedom from religion has been now changed to religion as a state symbol while saying people have a right to pray to the Devil in their own home if they want and not force others to do the same thing by law.:confused:
The Supreme Court has been deciding legal issues for the past 10 years
Doncha just love quotes outta context! :p
I know you know you could have worded that one a lil better, huh. :)
David Jamieson
05-30-2013, 11:49 AM
That IS the point! The Supreme Court has been deciding legal issues for the past 10 years but the trickery is the the people are tricked into believeing they are free and the kicker works! Since when do corporations have a right to use the Supreme Court as a way to control the people, how they are hired and who is to insure them? And it is all legal!
The forefathers of USA actually campaigned against this, but now it is LAW! I' m shocked you didn't see it. Freedom from religion has been now changed to religion as a state symbol while saying people have a right to pray to the Devil in their own home if they want and not force others to do the same thing by law.:confused:
I think the states are struggling with information control. No one really has it anymore and that freaks people out. Especially people who want to own the information flow.
You don't think the SC of the USA is checked or balanced? It is only one of three sections after all.
But yeah, the US lobby system is a sad ass state of affairs. I'm surprised the people of the USA put up with that crap. they put up with a lot of crap that they really don't have to and if they knew their standing in the world statistically on things like education, wealth, health care and yes, freedom, I think any Americans would be blown away by how far behind the curve they've fallen.
SoCo KungFu
05-30-2013, 01:49 PM
if they knew their standing in the world statistically on things like education, wealth, health care and yes, freedom, I think any Americans would be blown away by how far behind the curve they've fallen.
No, most of us do realize where were are in these areas. The problem is most Americans don't realize what THAT means. They can't properly connect the stats with the actions that brought them to be. And it doesn't help when you have half the population that thinks that ensuring things like education and health care are an abridgment of freedom.
No ****, just the other day some dumb woman tried to argue to me that providing adequate mental health care is a form of tyranny because it would require tax payer support. Yes, health care is TYRANNY.
No, most of us do realize where were are in these areas. The problem is most Americans don't realize what THAT means. They can't properly connect the stats with the actions that brought them to be. And it doesn't help when you have half the population that thinks that ensuring things like education and health care are an abridgment of freedom.
No ****, just the other day some dumb woman tried to argue to me that providing adequate mental health care is a form of tyranny because it would require tax payer support. Yes, health care is TYRANNY.
Sad when people use words that they can define yet still get it wrong. They have no concept of harm reduction as a means of social AND economic progress. Short sighted and selfish as ****. They just don't realize how it affects them even though it affects them all day every day. You should have told her that security through police is tyranny because she pays for that too. That the local roads are tyranny, the library and so on. Ridiculous. These people need to get off Ayn Rand's dick and take a serious look around at what is actually happening. So ironic how their idea of freedom actually reduces their freedom. How free are you when you have to lock yourself up in a fortress and man the walls 24/7 just so you don't get run through. Yaaay freedom :rolleyes:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530.html
An answer to a lunar mystery: Why is the moon’s gravity so uneven?
Simulations based on GRAIL data show how gravitational anomalies developed early in lunar history.
Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130530110350-0.jpg
Using a precision formation-flying technique, the twin GRAIL spacecraft have mapped the moon's gravity field, as depicted in this artist's rendering.
ILLUSTRATION: NASA/JPL-CALTECH
May 30, 2013
Ever since the first satellites were sent to the moon to scout landing sites for Apollo astronauts, scientists have noticed a peculiar phenomenon: As these probes orbited the moon, passing over certain craters and impact basins, they periodically veered off course, plummeting toward the lunar surface before pulling back up.
As it turns out, the cause of such bumpy orbits was the moon itself: Over the years, scientists have observed that its gravity is stronger in some regions than others, creating a “lumpy” gravitational field. In particular, a handful of impact basins exhibit unexpectedly strong gravitational pull. Scientists have suspected that the explanation has to do with an excess distribution of mass below the lunar surface, and have dubbed these regions mass concentrations, or “mascons.”
Exactly how these mascons came to be has remained a mystery — until now.
Using high-resolution gravity data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, researchers at MIT and Purdue University have mapped the structure of several lunar mascons and found that their gravitational fields resemble a bull’s-eye pattern: a center of strong, or positive, gravity surrounded by alternating rings of negative and positive gravity.
To figure out what caused this gravitational pattern, the team created simulations of lunar impacts, along with their geological repercussions in the moon’s crust and mantle, over both the short- and long-term. They found that the simulations reproduced the bull’s-eye pattern under just one scenario.
When an asteroid crashes into the moon, it sends material flying out, creating a dense band of debris around the crater’s perimeter. The impact sends a shockwave through the moon’s interior, reverberating within the crust and producing a counterwave that draws dense material from the lunar mantle toward the surface, creating a dense center within the crater. After hundreds of millions of years, the surface cools and relaxes, creating a bull’s-eye that matches today’s gravitational pattern.
This tumultuous chain of events likely gave way to today’s lunar mascons, says Maria Zuber, the E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
“For the first time, we have a holistic understanding of the process that forms mascons,” says Zuber, who is also GRAIL’s principal investigator, and MIT’s vice president for research. “There will be more details that emerge for sure, but the quality of the GRAIL data enabled rapid progress on this longstanding question.”
Zuber and her colleagues have published their results this week in Science.
Mapping a bumpy ride
From January to December 2012, GRAIL’s twin probes, Ebb and Flow, orbited in tandem around the moon, mapping its gravitational field by measuring the changing distance between themselves — a real-time indication of the strength of the moon’s gravitational pull. As the probes got closer to the moon’s surface toward the end of the mission, Zuber recalls, engineers had to adjust the probes’ orbits to counteract the tug of lunar mascons.
“Because the moon’s gravity field is so bumpy, we would put the two spacecraft in a circular orbit, and the orbits immediately became elliptical because the spacecraft got tugged out of their orbit,” Zuber says. “We were always within a week of crashing.”
Despite the impending threat of impact, the probes gathered high-resolution measurements, which Zuber and the GRAIL science team have since translated into detailed gravitational maps. These maps also gave scientists precise measurements of the thickness of lunar crust in any given region of the moon, which Purdue’s Jay Melosh integrated into impact simulations.
Melosh simulated the process of lunar impacts in two similarly sized basins on the near side of the moon — one with lava deposits, the other without. Melosh fed the crustal thicknesses from both basins into the model, then ran the simulation to see how the same impact would affect each region.
According to measurements from GRAIL, the basin containing central lava deposits had a thinner crust than the other basin. After running their simulations, the researchers found that an impact had created a gravitational bull’s-eye pattern in the first basin, but not the second — predictions that matched GRAIL’s measurements.
Making an impact
Why the difference in gravitational signatures? The answer, the group found, lay in the crust’s thickness at the time of impact: Impacts to regions with thinner crust do more damage, easily sending shockwaves into the denser, underlying mantle — which, in turn, draws more dense material to the surface, creating a mascon. Regions with thicker crust, by contrast, are more resistant to impacts and internal upheaval.
“Large impacts happen in seconds to hours,” Zuber says. “The process of how the crust cools off and recovers from such a devastating event, that’s hundreds of millions of years. So we let these models run through time until the surface cools and relaxes. Then what you’re left with is today’s gravity.”
The results from the group’s simulations precisely matched GRAIL’s actual gravity measurements, giving scientists confidence that the simulated impact scenario is indeed what formed the lunar mascons.
While most scientists agree that the moon’s mascons likely arose from large impacts, Laurent Montesi, an associate professor of geology at the University of Maryland, says the precise processes that led to the formation of the mascons has been a mystery since their discovery 45 years ago.
“This paper finally proposes an answer to this longstanding puzzle by including a start-to-finish model of mascon formation,” says Montesi, who did not contribute to this research. “It is now clear that geological processes occurring over millions of years are needed to turn the structure produced immediately by the impact into a mascon. It is remarkable how well the models in the paper reproduce the observed structures.”
Zuber says that knowing what gave rise to lunar mascons may help us understand the evolution of the moon, as well as other planets. The mascons likely formed during a period known as the Late Heavy Bombardment, when the early solar system endured a blitz of interplanetary collisions. The Earth may have undergone even more impacts than the moon, although the resulting craters have since been erased by erosion and plate tectonics. Studying the repercussions of impacts on the moon therefore might offer clues to Earth’s origins.
“This was a very inhospitable time to be at the surface of a planet,” Zuber says. “The tail end of this process is when the first single-celled organisms emerged on Earth. So knowing what the effect of the impacts was on the thermal state of a planet that early tells us about the extreme conditions under which life on Earth took hold."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/ferroelectric-graphene-based-system-could-lead-to-improved-information-processing-0621.html
Ferroelectric-graphene-based system could lead to improved information processing
New system uses two-dimensional structures to guide plasmonic waves at ultrashort wavelength, offering a new platform for memory and computer chips.
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130620115856-0.jpg
Schematics of a ferroelectric-graphene-ferroelectric nanostructure. Different domains of ferroelectrics can define densely packed waveguide patterns on graphene. Terahertz plasmons at ultrashort wavelength can flow on these waveguides.
GRAPHIC COURTESY OF QING HU
Researchers at MIT have proposed a new system that combines ferroelectric materials — the kind often used for data storage — with graphene, a two-dimensional form of carbon known for its exceptional electronic and mechanical properties. The resulting hybrid technology could eventually lead to computer and data-storage chips that pack more components in a given area and are faster and less power-hungry.
The new system works by controlling waves called surface plasmons. These waves are oscillations of electrons confined at interfaces between materials; in the new system the waves operate at terahertz frequencies. Such frequencies lie between those of far-infrared light and microwave radio transmissions, and are considered ideal for next-generation computing devices.
The findings were reported in a paper in Applied Physics Letters by associate professor of mechanical engineering Nicholas Fang, postdoc Dafei Jin and three others.
The system would provide a new way to construct interconnected devices that use light waves, such as fiber-optic cables and photonic chips, with electronic wires and devices. Currently, such interconnection points often form a bottleneck that slows the transfer of data and adds to the number of components needed.
The team’s new system allows waves to be concentrated at much smaller length scales, which could lead to a tenfold gain in the density of components that could be placed in a given area of a chip, Fang says.
The team’s initial proof-of-concept device uses a small piece of graphene sandwiched between two layers of the ferroelectric material to make simple, switchable plasmonic waveguides. This work used lithium niobate, but many other such materials could be used, the researchers say.
Light can be confined in these waveguides down to one part in a few hundreds of the free-space wavelength, Jin says, which represents an order-of-magnitude improvement over any comparable waveguide system. “This opens up exciting areas for transmitting and processing optical signals,” he says.
Moreover, the work may provide a new way to read and write electronic data into ferroelectric memory devices at very high speed, the MIT researchers say.
Dimitri Basov, a professor of physics at the University of California at San Diego who was not connected with this research, says the MIT team “proposed a very interesting plasmonic structure, suitable for operation in the technologically significant [terahertz] range. … I am confident that many research groups will try to implement these devices.”
Basov cautions, however, “The key issue, as in all of plasmonics, is losses. Losses need to be thoroughly explored and understood.”
In addition to Fang and Jin, the research was carried out by graduate student Anshuman Kumar, former postdoc Kin Hung Fung (now at Hong Kong Polytechnic University), and research scientist Jun Xu. It was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
GoldenBrain
06-22-2013, 07:08 PM
Sad when people use words that they can define yet still get it wrong. They have no concept of harm reduction as a means of social AND economic progress. Short sighted and selfish as ****. They just don't realize how it affects them even though it affects them all day every day. You should have told her that security through police is tyranny because she pays for that too. That the local roads are tyranny, the library and so on. Ridiculous. These people need to get off Ayn Rand's dick and take a serious look around at what is actually happening. So ironic how their idea of freedom actually reduces their freedom. How free are you when you have to lock yourself up in a fortress and man the walls 24/7 just so you don't get run through. Yaaay freedom :rolleyes:
I believe the applicable quote goes something like this... "Those who would sacrifice security for freedom deserve neither and will loose both."~Ben Franklin
It's to bad most Americans don't get this concept.
Scott R. Brown
06-22-2013, 10:42 PM
Inherently there is no such thing as material freedom. Freedom is condition of mind, not a material state of being.
About the freest people, from state control, ever were indigenous peoples. But they still had their social morals, defined by their tribe, they were required to conform too, and lone wolfs still had to deal with nature, wild beasts, weather, availability of food sources an other resources for making tools etc. We all have a master of some kind we must conform to in order to survive.
Today freedom is relative to what you want contrasted with what you have.
KungFubar
06-22-2013, 10:57 PM
Inherently there is no such thing as material freedom. Freedom is condition of mind, not a material state of being.
About the freest people, from state control, ever were indigenous peoples. But they still had their social morals, defined by their tribe, they were required to conform too, and lone wolfs still had to deal with nature, wild beasts, weather, availability of food sources an other resources for making tools etc. We all have a master of some kind we must conform to in order to survive.
Today freedom is relative to what you want contrasted with what you have.
would you agree that some people are more free than others? If so, then wouldnt your prefer more freedom to less?
mawali
06-22-2013, 11:08 PM
I have the weirdest sentiment, at least in USA, that people confuse entitlement and priviledge as freedom so they get caught up in their own web of confusion.
Then the crap shoot starts!:confused:
Scott R. Brown
06-23-2013, 01:00 AM
would you agree that some people are more free than others? If so, then wouldnt your prefer more freedom to less?
Exactly! Material freedom is relative. We have, generally, more freedom than others around the world, but we are still not free. Generally, people work and are bound to their jobs, their credit debts, like cards, house and car payments. If you have kids and a wife you are bound to them, you pay taxes to a government that sends you to prison if you refuse to pay. You are bound by regulations if you own a business, etc. We are relatively free, but we are NOT free by any means. And even then it depends upon what you are willing to be bound by too.
Socialist/Communist view is freedom from worry of sustenance, in general democracies are somewhat focused on the freedom to accomplish according to your drive and abilities.
But do not confuse any of it with freedom. We are not free, never have been and never will be!
It's a careful balance that completely depends on your priorities. For a country of warlike xenophobes, this whole NSA thing seems rather obvious. I always just assumed everything was been logged and pushed through some sort of search engine. It amazes me that this surprises people. Not that I agree/disagree with it, just that it's pretty obvious.
The Artificial Leaf - Renewable Energy - Horizons
http://youtu.be/J556uXwrjII
Some basics.
The Standard Model Of Particle Physics
http://youtu.be/V0KjXsGRvoA
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YPHECpF2jUk/UcDt****X-I/AAAAAAAAZGU/xInOHqrqQUY/s506-o/BNEFRiCCYAEU6fz.jpg
Are you ****ing kidding me!!??!!?? I can't post a pic because some of the random letters in the URL spell ****??? So sad...
Here's the link.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-YPHECpF2jUk/UcDt****X-I/AAAAAAAAZGU/xInOHqrqQUY/s506-o/BNEFRiCCYAEU6fz.jpg
You will have to cut and paste the link...
I don't blame you if you couldn't be bothered. But after all this I'm posting it anyways!!!
Some more corporate douchebaggery!!!
https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/7b13203a7540
Patent Trolls—the Malpractice Lawyers of the Tech Sector
The term “troll”, was heretofore considered in the context of a Grimm’s fairytale such as The Three Billy Goats Gruff. However, its current meaning relates to the technology sector and describes no less a villain than the trolls of Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore.
The Patent Troll Defined
In general terms, a patent troll is a person, business or corporation that perverts the use of patents as a business model or strategy. The patent troll can be described in one or more of the following ways:
1. Patent or patents are purchased or otherwise acquired from struggling or bankrupt firms and then suit for patent infringement is brought against a company under the guise that the company has a product or products that infringe on said patent or patents.
2. Patent or patents are enforced against alleged patent infringers, even though the enforcer has no intent to utilize the patent
3. Acts as a patent enforcement boiler room having no manufacturing or research function to call its own
4. Exists for the sole purpose of enforcing the patents it has acquired
Why Is This Bad?
Isn’t there something inherently evil in lying in ambush for a business to infringe on patents which would otherwise contribute nothing to society? More to the point, these infringements are not typically the result of a company’s overt act of patent theft. It is much more likely that the company developed the technology independently, with no prior knowledge of the patent.
I would argue that these patent trolls are nothing more than shakedown artists, akin to the protection rackets which exploited small businesses in the first half of the twentieth century.
Paraphrasing Mike Mesnick’s article in Techdirt, we see a company by the name of Innovatio IP who claims ownership of patents that its lawyers believe cover virtually every aspect of Wi-Fi implementation. As a result, these malpractice lawyers of the high technology world are suing coffee shops, hotel and fast food chains for—yes, patent infringement.
Obviously these are soft targets for these vultures … I mean attorneys. Such enterprises have no experience in patent infringement litigation but, as it turns out, Innovatio IP’s attorneys are all heart and are agreeing to settlements in the $2300 to $5000 range. Whew! Let’s put a pencil to that.
McDonald’s has 11,500 restaurants with free Wi-Fi for its customers and the overwhelming majority of these restaurants are a franchise, which means they are privately owned by the way.
Then 11,500 multiplied by an average settlement of, well, let’s be conservative and say $3000, will yield Innovatio IP a gross settlement of $34.5 million. Of course the vultures … I mean the lawyers, will take their cut, which even at 40 percent leaves Innovatio IP a cool $20.7 million in the black. Oh yes, mustn’t forget—that’s just from MickeyD’s. Then, they can move on to Starbuck’s, Caribou Coffee, Comfort Inn, etc. The firm has no immediate plans to go after homeowners who have Wi-Fi (how comforting).
It easy to understand why venture capitalist and blogger Fred Wilson tweeted the following:
“Just in case you didn’t know how I feel: patent trolls are a tax on innovation and are evil of the highest order”
Compulsory Patent Licensing
One solution under discussion is compulsory patent licensing. Under such a system, the owner of a patent must license the patent to third parties in exchange for a set payment which would be determined by law or by arbitration.
While this approach would effectively de-fang the patent trolls, there may well be unintended consequences more troubling than the current one.
There is a superb white paper on the subject co-authored by Carol M. Nielsen and Michael R. Samardzija, both of whom are practicing attorneys and recognized experts in patent and intellectual property law. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in learning more on the subject.
Big Brother Shows Interest
On the heels of President Obama’s issuance of several executive orders, which direct executive agencies to take steps to “protect innovators from frivolous litigation”, Edith Ramirez, chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission, announced plans to seek the full commission’s authority to subpoena companies that are known to be patent-assertion entities (yep—patent trolls). These companies will be queried on their methods of operation, how and if they coordinate litigation with other patent holders and whether the proceeds of successful litigation and/or licenses are paid back to the original patent holder.
Next, we will discuss the economic havoc patent trolls caused targeted companies and the broader havoc these trolls perpetrate on our economy and innovative spirit.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/fugitive-methane-from-shale-less-than-thought.html
This isn't new info, but I feel it relevant as it is being left out of the conversation in these "popdocs". For anyone who is actually curious about the science, there is a ton of good info out there about the good and the bad of shale gas production.
Study: 'Fugitive' methane from shale gas production less than previously thought
MIT researchers, using field practices, find emissions from shale gas production to be significantly lower than previous estimates.
While the United States lags in developing a broad-based climate policy, the nation's carbon emissions reached a 20-year low this year. Many have attributed some of that drop to a booming supply of low-carbon natural gas, of which the United States is the world's largest producer. But does natural gas — and specifically the quickly developing production of shale gas — create other emissions, such as methane, that could be just as harmful? A new study by MIT researchers shows the amount of methane emissions caused by shale gas production has been largely exaggerated.
"While increased efforts need to be made to reduce emissions from the gas industry overall, the production of shale gas has not significantly increased total emissions from the sector," says Francis O'Sullivan, a researcher at the MIT Energy Initiative and the lead author of the study released this week in Environmental Research Letters.
The research comes amidst several other reports on the impact of "fugitive" methane emissions — gas leaked or purposefully vented during and immediately after the stage of shale gas production known as hydraulic fracturing. While many of these reports studied the amount of potential emissions associated with the hydraulic fracturing process, the MIT researchers stress that this is only part of the puzzle. Consideration must also be given to how this gas is handled at the drilling sites, the study shows.
"It's unrealistic to assume all potential emissions are vented," O'Sullivan says. "Not least because some states have regulations requiring flaring as a minimum gas-handling method."
Sergey Paltsev, the study's co-author and the assistant director for economic research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, says companies also have an economic reason for wanting to capture this "fugitive" gas.
"When companies vent and flare methane they are losing gas that they could have captured and sold," Paltsev says. "When we compared the cost of installing the right equipment to capture this gas to the loss in revenue if it isn't captured, we found that the majority of shale wells make money by capturing the potential 'fugitive' emissions."
In talking with industry representatives and officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), O'Sullivan and Paltsev found that companies are already capturing about 70 percent of potential "fugitive" emissions. In factoring that into their analysis, the researchers find emissions from shale gas production to be strikingly lower than previous estimates of potential emissions.
Their analysis was based on data from each of the approximately 4,000 wells drilled in the five main U.S. shale drilling sites during 2010. Wells in two of those sites, Texas' Barnett shale and the Haynesville shale on the Texas-Louisiana boarder, had been studied by Robert Howarth from Cornell University last year when he looked at potential emissions released by the industry. His study garnered much attention because it claimed the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas was larger than that of conventional gas, oil, and, over a 20-year time frame, coal. That study, however, used very limited well datasets.
In studying potential emissions, Howarth found 252 Mg of methane emissions per well in the Barnett site and 4,638 Mg per well in the Haynesville site. The MIT researchers, using their comprehensive well dataset, found that the potential emissions per well in the Barnett and Haynesville sites were in fact 147 Mg of methane (273 thousand cubic meters of natural gas) and 633 Mg (1,177 thousand cublic meters of gas), respectively. When accounting for actual gas handling field practices, these emissions estimates were reduced to about 35 Mg per well of methane from an average Barnett well and 151 Mg from an average Haynesville well.
According to Adam Brandt, an assistant professor at Stanford University, this analysis "provides an important contribution to the literature by greatly improving our understanding of potential shale gas emissions using a very large dataset."
Brandt says, "Previous studies used much smaller and more uncertain datasets, while O'Sullivan and Paltsev have gathered a much larger and more comprehensive industry dataset. This significantly reduces the uncertainty associated with potential emissions from shale gas development."
A U.S. Department of Energy study released in August confirmed that while electricity generated by gas produces half the emissions of coal generation, natural gas production does make up 3 percent of the nation's total emissions. While the overall benefits far outweigh the small increases during production, Paltsev believes the EPA's efforts to reduce those emissions through new air quality standards are a "step in the right direction."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/new-system-uses-low-power-wi-fi-signal-to-track-moving-humans-0628.html
Just one more thing on my long list of crap I wanna build.
New system uses low-power Wi-Fi signal to track moving humans — even behind walls
‘Wi-Vi’ is based on a concept similar to radar and sonar imaging.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130627150919-0.jpg
ILLUSTRATION: CHRISTINE DANILOFF/MIT
The comic-book hero Superman uses his X-ray vision to spot bad guys lurking behind walls and other objects. Now we could all have X-ray vision, thanks to researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Researchers have long attempted to build a device capable of seeing people through walls. However, previous efforts to develop such a system have involved the use of expensive and bulky radar technology that uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum only available to the military.
Now a system being developed by Dina Katabi, a professor in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and her graduate student Fadel Adib, could give all of us the ability to spot people in different rooms using low-cost Wi-Fi technology. “We wanted to create a device that is low-power, portable and simple enough for anyone to use, to give people the ability to see through walls and closed doors,” Katabi says.
The system, called “Wi-Vi,” is based on a concept similar to radar and sonar imaging. But in contrast to radar and sonar, it transmits a low-power Wi-Fi signal and uses its reflections to track moving humans. It can do so even if the humans are in closed rooms or hiding behind a wall.
As a Wi-Fi signal is transmitted at a wall, a portion of the signal penetrates through it, reflecting off any humans on the other side. However, only a tiny fraction of the signal makes it through to the other room, with the rest being reflected by the wall, or by other objects. “So we had to come up with a technology that could cancel out all these other reflections, and keep only those from the moving human body,” Katabi says.
Motion detector
To do this, the system uses two transmit antennas and a single receiver. The two antennas transmit almost identical signals, except that the signal from the second antenna is the inverse of the first. As a result, the two signals interfere with each other in such a way as to cancel each other out. Since any static objects that the signals hit — including the wall — create identical reflections, they too are cancelled out by this nulling effect.
In this way, only those reflections that change between the two signals, such as those from a moving object, arrive back at the receiver, Adib says. “So, if the person moves behind the wall, all reflections from static objects are cancelled out, and the only thing registered by the device is the moving human.”
Once the system has cancelled out all of the reflections from static objects, it can then concentrate on tracking the person as he or she moves around the room. Most previous attempts to track moving targets through walls have done so using an array of spaced antennas, which each capture the signal reflected off a person moving through the environment. But this would be too expensive and bulky for use in a handheld device.
So instead Wi-Vi uses just one receiver. As the person moves through the room, his or her distance from the receiver changes, meaning the time it takes for the reflected signal to make its way back to the receiver changes too. The system then uses this information to calculate where the person is at any one time.
Possible uses in disaster recovery, personal safety, gaming
Wi-Vi, being presented at the Sigcomm conference in Hong Kong in August, could be used to help search-and-rescue teams to find survivors trapped in rubble after an earthquake, say, or to allow police officers to identify the number and movement of criminals within a building to avoid walking into an ambush.
It could also be used as a personal safety device, Katabi says: “If you are walking at night and you have the feeling that someone is following you, then you could use it to check if there is someone behind the fence or behind a corner.”
The device can also detect gestures or movements by a person standing behind a wall, such as a wave of the arm, Katabi says. This would allow it to be used as a gesture-based interface for controlling lighting or appliances within the home, such as turning off the lights in another room with a wave of the arm.
Venkat Padmanabhan, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, says the possibility of using Wi-Vi as a gesture-based interface that does not require a line of sight between the user and the device itself is perhaps its most interesting application of all. “Such an interface could alter the face of gaming,” he says.
Unlike today’s interactive gaming devices, where users must stay in front of the console and its camera at all times, users could still interact with the system while in another room, for example. This could open up the possibility of more complex and interesting games, Katabi says.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-fCnXa4lijH0/UdSdF67Nt7I/AAAAAAAByGM/7D6e4h7LkQQ/w506-h377-o/537683_439169339497976_1142153425_n.jpg
:p
Yeah yeah, I know! :o
Atomic Calligraphy: The Direct Writing of Nanoscale Structures Using a Microelectromechanical System
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl401699w
http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/nalefd/0/nalefd.ahead-of-print/nl401699w/aop/images/medium/nl-2013-01699w_0007.gif
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oSjiyYPPP4g/UdlfpBG6xBI/AAAAAAAADx8/PhewWy0nFVs/w249-h373-no/solar-energy.png
Anyone?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/study-details-the-quirky-geography-of-knowledge-sharing-0705.html
Study details the quirky geography of knowledge-sharing
Research indicates how man-made boundaries limit patent citations.
Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office
Scholars have long been interested in tracking “knowledge spillovers,” the way technical and intellectual advances spread among communities of researchers and innovators. And a significant body of work has shown that distance matters when it comes to the dissemination of knowledge: advances are more likely to be noted by those nearby to the advance’s origin.
Now a new study co-authored by an MIT assistant professor adds a wrinkle to this issue: National and state boundaries have a distinctly limiting effect on knowledge spillovers, as revealed by an examination of roughly 30 years of data on patent citation. A patent is less likely to be cited by someone working, say, 100 miles away from its point of origin if that distance means crossing a state line, within the United States, or a country line, around the world. The spread of knowledge has a clear geopolitical shape.
“When people tend to work in the same geographic areas, knowledge tends to get shared, not just within companies, but between them,” acknowledges Matt Marx, an assistant professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management. “Some people have said this is all about distance, and the closer you are, the more the knowledge is flowing. But we find that there is a state effect, although it’s getting weaker over time.” More puzzlingly, however, he notes, “The country effect is getting stronger.”
In a paper presenting the research, published in the journal Management Science, Marx and Jasjit Singh of Singapore’s INSEAD business school summarize their findings, based on more than 4 million citations of private-sector patents spanning the years 1975 to 2004. They conclude that citations of patents among firms are 1.3 times as likely to spread a comparable distance when within one country, and not crossing any borders; more than two times as likely to spread a comparable distance when within a U.S. state; and nearly three times as likely to spread when within one metropolitan region within a state.
[B]Simultaneous study
The concept of knowledge spillovers date to the famous economist Alfred Marshall in the 1920s, and gained considerable popularity as a subject for empirical study in the 1990s. Most of those studies, however, have examined patent data at one geographic level at a time — the country, state or metropolitan area. By looking at all three at once, the current study could compare the flow of knowledge across comparable distances, but in circumstances where the political borders varied.
“It’s not just how many miles are between researchers,” Marx says. “You might think that, with the Internet, those borders shouldn’t matter. But they do.”
Indeed, Marx and Singh found that patents generated within just 20 miles of a state border are considerably more likely to be cited within the state of origin than in the neighboring state. And even in the roughly 60 metropolitan areas in the United States that are situated in multiple states — such as the Cincinnati area, which is based in Ohio but also extends into Kentucky and Indiana — patents are again more likely to be cited in the state of origin.
The research paper’s primary focus is on establishing the empirical landscape of knowledge flow. But Marx suggests a few reasons why knowledge spillovers take the shape they do. For one thing, he says, the still-existing but receding state-level effect in the United States could reflect increased adoption, since the 1990s, of online patent databases. Alternately, it may be that many patent citations are added, as a protective measure, by law firms with specialized local knowledge.
On the international front, it is not especially hard to list possible restrictions on knowledge spillovers: “You might imagine that borders, language, currency, and immigration tend to keep people [and knowledge] in the same places,” Marx says. But there are other categories of reasons that could explain some of the phenomena, too.
“It could be that U.S. industries are becoming more specialized,” Marx says. That would lead to fewer knowledge spillovers because the innovations would be less applicable among countries.
As Marx notes, perspectives may also differ on the value of that knowledge flow. Local or regional political or business leaders might want to maintain the local impact of knowledge spillovers; one might also see it as an affirmation of the value of research clusters, or as a spur to create more of them in more localities. But others might prefer to see knowledge flow more easily across boundaries.
“It depends where you’re sitting,” Marx says.
‘Interesting, puzzling’
The study is based on citation data sourced from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which include international patents filed in the United States. The cities used in the study come from a definition of metropolitan areas with surrounding commuting zones issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in 2003.
Other scholars in the field say the findings are notable, and call for further research that can shed light on the precise dynamics shaping the flow of knowledge.
“It’s an interesting paper that presents a puzzling fact,” says Olav Sorenson, a professor at the Yale School of Management, who is familiar with the findings. When it comes to the transmission of knowledge, he adds, “we had not known whether within-country borders have an effect,” but Marx and Singh “have demonstrated quite convincingly that metropolitan areas and state borders restrict the flow of information.”
And yet, Sorenson adds, “In order to determine whether it would lead to any policy recommendations, it’s crucial for us to understand the underlying mechanism” behind the effect Marx and Singh have found.
For his part, Marx agrees that the paper suggests ways that follow-up research is needed by scholars in this area of study.
“The role of this paper is really to establish some empirical facts and raise questions,” Marx says. “The idea is to get those facts on the table, and future work can focus on figuring out the mechanisms at work here.”
Synthetic molecule first electricity-making catalyst to use iron to split hydrogen gas
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=970
PNNL scientists discovered the first iron-based catalyst that converts hydrogen directly to electricity. The result moves chemists and engineers one step closer to widely affordable fuel cells.
http://www.pnnl.gov/news/images/photos/20130213135826376.jpg
http://socialreader.com/me/content/WLUZi?chid=33942&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=gplus
Can the U.S. Create a National Park on the Moon?
The Hill is reporting the rather startling news that Reps. Donna Edwards (D-MD) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) have introduced legislation to create a National Historic Park at the Apollo landing sites on the moon. "As commercial enterprises and foreign nations acquire the ability to land on the Moon, it is necessary to protect the Apollo lunar landing sites for posterity," the bill reads.
On first reading, you might wonder -- as I did -- how the United States can establish a national historical park outside of its borders. Neil Armstrong may have planted a flag on the moon, but that doesn't mean we own the place.
This is probably why the "park" established by the bill would consist only of the "artifacts left on the surface of the moon" as part the Apollo 11 through 17 missions, including the lunar modules and various other equipment. This makes more sense: U.S. ships are generally considered part of American territory, so why not spacecraft? The bill also specifies that the U.S. must ask UNESCO to designate the Apollo 11 site as a World Heritage site.
But what's to stop some rogue state from mining for Helium-3 right next to Apollo 11, ruining the Sea of Tranquility's atmosphere of ... tranquility? Would it be possible to simply annex a little enclave of the moon to protect it from rapacious space traders?
Not at the moment. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States is a party, specifies that "Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." But in a 2012 FP article speculating on what would happen if China ever attempted to annex lunar territory, political scientist John Hickman argued that it wouldn't be too hard to get around this:
Although the 1967 space treaty asserts common ownership of the entire universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, it also permits signatory states to withdraw from its terms with only a year's notice. And there's no law governing whether you can fly a rocket to the moon and land a ship there.
After renouncing the treaty, Beijing could annex regions of the moon and justify its actions with two arguments: First, in allowing states to withdraw, the treaty implicitly recognizes the possibility of claiming sovereign extraterrestrial territory. Second, after withdrawing from the treaty, China could declare any annexed lunar land terra nullius -- territory belonging to no one and therefore subject to national claims; Article 70 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that states renouncing or withdrawing from multilateral treaties are released "from any obligation further to perform" the terms of the treaty. Besides, most international law on the question of sovereignty claims defers to self-determination -- the wishes of the inhabitants. Since, as far as we know, there are no inhabitants on the moon, this doesn't apply.
The bill in question here obviously doesn't go nearly that far, but if we really want to establish a lunar Yellowstone, a little bit of aggressive unilateralism might be required. I can think of one GOP heavy-hitter who might want to take this project on
Can't say I didn't see this coming. This specific act may be about protecting a heritage site, but we all know where this is leading.
This makes me think of some other interesting questions that have been circulating for awhile now. The big word here is RESOURCES. Let's say we start mining asteroids for water. It makes sense. Water is heavy, rocket fuel is expensive. If you can stop by a station and water up after you have left the atmosphere, well... that's a HUGE advantage. But who mines the asteroid? Do they have exclusive rights? Who gave it to them?
This goes for anything outside our sphere. Any element, any body. Think of the massive wars we have fought while carving up the earth into our lil plots. Space is vast but it is full of resources if you can get to them. As our earthly supplies diminish, these resources increase in importance and therefore value. We have all seen this movie before, right? The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is getting old and times are changing. I fear this is going to be scrapped as more nations start putting their own craft into space. Right now, the big 5 are all in space, and they keep each other in check as they race for new technology and abilities. They work together rather well these days, at least in this field. But there will be a time when we are at a point when there is incentive to break this treaty down. Our new policies will reflect how things work down here, and quite frankly, it ain't a good look these days.
Thoughts?
David Jamieson
07-11-2013, 09:04 AM
Freedom has become a state of mind. Personally, I think it always has been.
If you wanna live outside the boundaries of reciprocal society, you have to leave that society.
Freedom has become a state of mind. Personally, I think it always has been.
If you wanna live outside the boundaries of reciprocal society, you have to leave that society.
Can you explain to me how your comment relates to the 1967 outer space treaty?
It's not that I disagree with you, quite the contrary. In general terms, anyways. I'm just not sure where you're going with that.
Chemists Work to Desalt the Ocean for Drinking Water, One Nanoliter at a Time
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/06/27/chemists-work-to-desalt-the-ocean-for-drinking-water-one-nanoliter-at-a-time/
Seems they still have quite a long way to go, but it's cool to see this in practice. Finally.
wenshu
07-18-2013, 09:16 AM
http://www.androidauthority.com/nasa-phonesat-nexus-satellites-203050/
http://www.androidauthority.com/nasa-phonesat-nexus-satellites-203050/
I'm waiting for somebody to do this with a cheap dev board. Totally do-able. :D
wenshu
07-18-2013, 12:41 PM
I'm waiting for somebody to do this with a cheap dev board. Totally do-able. :D
What exactly do you think a cell phone is these days?
Except it already has a camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, barometer, magnetometer, GPS and UHF built in.
What exactly do you think a cell phone is these days?
Except it already has a camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, barometer, magnetometer, GPS and UHF built in.
Sure. And there advantages and disadvantages to that. Mos def cheaper to use a finished product, but you lose some latitude there.
Earth from Saturn July 19, 2013
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zCK8ISaNf7c/UeryJxDxt3I/AAAAAAAAPhA/rwXXkJUo3fA/s506-o/saturn_130719.png
Earth from Saturn July 19, 2013
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zCK8ISaNf7c/UeryJxDxt3I/AAAAAAAAPhA/rwXXkJUo3fA/s506-o/saturn_130719.png
Billions photobomb saturn pics!:p
NASA Engineer Achieves Another Milestone in Emerging Nanotechnology
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-engineer-achieves-another-milestone-in-emerging-nanotechnology/
Earth and Moon imaged from Cassini on July 19, 2013
http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/EarthMoon_Cassini1-580x502.jpg
wenshu
07-23-2013, 02:34 PM
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/23/hardware-giant-flextronics-is-launching-lab-ix-an-accelerator-that-gives-500k-to-each-startup-to-grow/
http://www.flextronics.com/business_groups/Pages/labix.aspx
http://www.flextronics.com/business_groups/Documents/flex_lab_ix_brochure_final_web.pdf
Great links. Thanx for that.
Flex is dope. They be giants!
Nice to see them throw in like that.
DOJ starts probe into Wall St. metals warehousing
By Josephine Mason
NEW YORK | Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:03pm EDT
(Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice has started a preliminary probe into the metals warehousing industry following complaints that storage firms owned by Wall Street banks and major traders have inflated prices, sources familiar with the matter said.
The DOJ has sent letters to at least two companies that own warehouses seeking more information about practices that industrial users allege have led to supply shortages and billions of dollars in extra costs, two sources familiar with the letter said on Wednesday.
A third source said the DOJ had informed at least one metal consumer of the probe.
The move is a further sign that U.S. regulators are increasing their scrutiny of the controversial and lucrative industry after years of complaints from aluminum users such as Coca-Cola Co (KO.N) and its sheet supplier Novelis Inc. Goldman Sachs (GS.N) this week said its warehousing subsidiary was not driving up prices or violating any laws.
The industry is also facing a possible investigation by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which last week told warehousing firms not to destroy any documents related to their business.
"The DOJ has opened a line of questioning to assess whether it needs to take further action," one of the sources said.
The exact nature of the letters was not immediately clear and there has been no public allegation of any illegal activity. It is not clear how advanced or broad the DOJ probe is, nor any certainty that it will result in formal charges.
The DOJ declined to comment on the preliminary investigation and letter.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Glencore Xstrata Plc (GLEN.L) and Trafigura AG TRAFGF.UL - all of whom have purchased major metals warehouses in the past three years - also declined to comment.
Anti-trust lawyers said the department would only launch an official investigation into the lucrative and controversial industry if it found evidence that warehousing firms had broken anti-trust laws. There has been no such indication.
"I would further expect that it would be a two-pronged inquiry aimed at determining whether there has been collusion and whether there has been monopolistic behavior in geographic markets," said U.S. anti-trust lawyer Robert Bernstein, a partner at New York-based Eaton & Van Winkle LLP, who works on behalf of U.S. copper fabricators.
The initial investigation comes as banks' multibillion-dollar commodity trading operations have come under the political spotlight.
The powerful U.S. Senate banking committee held its first hearing on the issue on Tuesday, when aluminum users represented by MillerCoors LLC said high physical prices have cost the consumers an extra $3 billion a year in expenses.
The Beer Institute, which represents the $250 billion beer industry and over 2,800 breweries, has met with the DOJ and urged them to take action, said a source familiar with the meeting.
On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs rebutted allegations that its warehousing company Metro Trade International has violated laws by shunting metal from warehouse to warehouse.
The warehouses and the London Metal Exchange, which oversees the storage outlets in its network, say the big stockpiles and high physical prices are the result of low interest rates and a market structure known as contango that make it profitable to sell metal forward and store it for months or years at a time.
It is also the byproduct of LME rules which mean warehousing companies only have to deliver out a small tonnages of metal each day. According to current rules, facilities with 900,000 metric tons or more metal have to load out 3,500 metric tons
Under fire from irate users, the LME has proposed a massive overhaul of its warehousing policy that would come into effect next April.
(Reporting by Josephine Mason; Additional reporting by Diane Bartz and David Ingram in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Leff and Ryan Woo)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/us-doj-metals-idUSBRE96O00Z20130725
The trading angle is particularly loathsome. Oligopolies suck!:o
Goldman Sachs believes that speculation accounts for 1/3 of the price for a barrel of oil.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8aXHPWdAbKE/UfKWQvZINwI/AAAAAAAAA1k/w3hMI3MT_dM/w506-h342/White+blood+cell.gif
http://lifescience.ie/blog/index.php/2013/07/more-science-in-motion/
GoldenBrain
07-30-2013, 06:40 PM
The organism, a social amoeba called Dictyostelium discoideum, picks up edible bacteria, carries them to new locations and harvests them like crops. Thats not all, it also caries another type of bacteria which has an antibiotic and antifungal chemical which does not effect the edible bacteria. It does however protect the edible bacteria by killing and preventing other organisms from competing with it on the same farm land.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161759.htm
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-social-amoebae-posse-amazingly-complicated.html
The organism, a social amoeba called Dictyostelium discoideum, picks up edible bacteria, carries them to new locations and harvests them like crops. Thats not all, it also caries another type of bacteria which has an antibiotic and antifungal chemical which does not effect the edible bacteria. It does however protect the edible bacteria by killing and preventing other organisms from competing with it on the same farm land.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161759.htm
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-social-amoebae-posse-amazingly-complicated.html
That's pretty cool. Biology isn't my thing, maybe somebody in that field(ahem, soco) can step in and provide a lil context. I love the field, but I'm neck deep and chem and physics. Ahh, if only we could live two lifetimes... Unfortunately I am not one of those savantes that have like 4 PhD's before they are 20. Must be cause I'm a non believer. Jesus is punishing me.
6 days till 1 Year On Mars. NASA 's Curiosity Mars rover has fired her laser for science more than 75,000 times at more than 2,000 locations on the Red Planet.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-bueloHv0Xhw/UflXm8aQrII/AAAAAAAACKQ/6EQEXaKjVCw/s506/PIA16234_ip.gif
What Magic is this? Not Magic. Science.
Popularly called the Kopp-Etchell Effect, and a few physicists have been known to regard it as the Piezoelectric Effect, but the actual physics behind it are still inconclusive. The one thing we do know, is that the blades from the Helicopters and the location of Afghanistan are part of the equation. There's always a scientific reason behind such beauty... :-)
Photo Credit: Sgt. Mike MacLeod/U.S. Army
Location: Afghanistan
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4iXh9dUERCs/UfltFsuJc6I/AAAAAAAABeM/vIZhNL0ujns/w506-h285/Dancing+Lights+Afghanistan.jpg
See... learning can be fun!!!
http://io9.com/scientists-grow-teeth-from-human-urine-because-why-the-963290464
Scientists grow teeth from human urine because why the hell not
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vh6q0z50o8lpng/k-bigpic.png
A new study shows that stem cells extracted from urine can be turned into rudimentary tooth-like structures. Oh, and the researchers did so by growing the teeth inside the kidneys of mice.
To make the teeth, Duanqing Pei, who works at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, mixed the stem cells with the connective tissue cells of mice. This concoction was grown for two days prior to being implanted under the outer layer of a mouse's kidney. Once there, the cells were coaxed into becoming dental epithelial tissue, and eventually enamel.
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18vh92rd5utcwpng/ku-medium.png
It's worth noting that the teeth were softer than normal teeth (probably because they were not being used as they grew), and they were a bit misshapen. The researchers don't know how to grow them such that they have the exact shape and size of specific teeth (like molars or incisors).
But eventually, the researchers hope to overcome these problems and see their technique used in clinical settings.
"Teeth are vital not only for a good smile, but also good health," write the authors in the study. "Yet, we lose teeth regularly due to accidents or diseases. An ideal solution to this problem is to regenerate teeth with patients’ own cells."
As for using human urine as the source for the cells, Pei said it was because it's "the most convenient source."
But Chris Mason, a stem cell biologists at University College London, told the BBC that urine is a poor starting point:
"It is probably one of the worst sources, there are very few cells in the first place and the efficiency of turning them into stem cells is very low.
"You just wouldn't do it in this way."
He also warned that the risk of contamination, such as through bacteria, was much higher than with other sources of cells.
Prof Mason added: "The big challenge here is the teeth have got a pulp with nerve and blood vessels which have to make sure they integrate to get permanent teeth."
Read the entire study at Cell Regeneration Journal.
Image: Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Think about that next time you take a leak!
Sorry for the enormous pic. Oversized pics that resize the browser totally annoy me. So my apologies for that! But I'm still too lazy to fix it!!!
**** it, it's my thread anyways :p
Hackers Reveal Nasty New Car Attacks
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/
Not a good look.
Dunno if people even read the crap I post here, but I thought this was pretty cool. So... yeah. Enjoy. :)
1 year of Curiosity!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Alq08Poqb0
GoldenBrain
08-05-2013, 07:58 PM
I think it's a great thread, so keep posting homie!
Thanx. Here's some bull****!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aTi5fM0ro
Yeah... that just happened!!!
wenshu
08-14-2013, 08:48 AM
From the Holy Cow Department: Disney Uses Bursts of Air to Create Virtual Haptic Feedback
From Canon's Mixed Reality System to Microsoft's see-through 3D display to Google Glass, the world's biggest technology companies are getting good at tricking our eyes into seeing things that aren't really there. But the missing piece in the feedback puzzle has always been the sense of touch. Videogame controllers can vibrate to simulate gunfire and racing car engines, but they require you to be physically grasping the devices.
Now, however, the folks Disney Research have created a way for those tingly little nerve endings on your skin to receive feedback. And they've done it by sculpting air.
http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/2013/08/aireal-01.jpg
This new haptic technology is called Aireal, and through it the gamers that it's initially aimed at can feel virtual objects, experience the sensation of touching various textures, or get kinetic feedback. All without any need to wear gloves, vests or suits. Puffs of air can be controlled in terms of varying strength and speed. So it will be capable of creating a sensation as gentle as a butterfly's wings or as strong as a baseball caught in a glove.
http://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/2013/08/aireal-02.jpg
http://www.core77.com/blog/materials/from_the_holy_cow_department_disney_uses_bursts_of _air_to_create_virtual_haptic_feedback_25361.asp
hskwarrior
08-14-2013, 08:55 AM
http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/8/13/4617750/regenerative-medicine-breakthrough-lab-grown-human-heart-tissue
sanjuro_ronin
08-14-2013, 09:33 AM
Way cool on both accounts.
GeneChing
08-14-2013, 10:33 AM
Wasn't sure where to post this. This will do
Asia After Dark: Chinese Martial Arts (http://china.usc.edu/%28X%281%29A%284Lx0jODOzgEkAAAAMDc5MmQ3N2UtMGJlZC0 0ZGM0LTlkNzYtMGI1OGFlZDBlMGU5sEXw7aUvH2EhRWmzd0yLc fFbpes1%29S%283gc5ve45p25hf145r4v3nl45%29%29/ShowEvent.aspx?EventID=4572)
The Smithsonian’s Freer Gallery of Art will transform into a cultural hot spot for the final "Asia After Dark" after-hours event of the summer, featuring a night of discovery and exploration into Chinese martial arts and 3-D printing technology.
08/17/2013 7:00PM - 11:00PM
Freer Gallery of Art
Address: 1050 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012
Cost: $25 in advance and $30 at the door
Website: www.asia.si.edu/asiaafterdark/
About Asia After Dark:
Asia After Dark (est. in 2009) is one of the most popular summer afterhours events in Washington, DC. The sell-out night brings over 1,000 cultural revelers out to experience Asian art like never before. The event features thematic lighting, visuals and décor, top Asian DJs, cutting-edge performance artists and dance troupes, hands-oncreative art activities, photobooths, traditional foods, and specialty bar drinks. The event has featured thehtalents of artists such as, iona rozeal brown, Steve Aoki, DJ Rekha, Brian Liu and Nick Pimentel of DJs Yellow Fever, Ashish “Hash” Vyas of Thievery Corporation, Jerry Busher, Chris Haskett (DJ Linux), Radio Javan Djs, DJ Cassidy Karakorn, Paul Miller(aka DJ Spooky), and DJ Asu Rock.
Asia After Dark: Chinese Martial Arts
On Saturday, Aug. 17, from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., the Smithsonian’s Freer Gallery of Art will transform into a cultural hot spot for the final "Asia After Dark" after-hours event of the summer, featuring a night of discovery and exploration into Chinese martial arts and 3-D printing technology. Through a special collaboration with the team planning the Smithsonian Innovation Space at the Arts & Industries Building, opening September 2014, guests can explore 3-D scanning and printing with experts from the Smithsonian’s digitization program unit and participate in the creation of a 10-foot-tall replica statue of the Freer’s renowned “Cosmological Buddha,” on view on in “Promise of Paradise: Early Chinese Buddhist Sculpture.” Keith Wilson, curator of ancient Chinese art, will also be on hand to discuss his latest research and what 3-D technology reveals about the scenes portrayed on the Buddha’s robe.
As the night continues and creative forces unfold, guests can experience kung fu martial arts and lion dance demonstrations, and the battle sounds of DJs Hop Fu, who will present their popular “hip-hop meets kung fu” performance—a live show that presents classic kung fu films with a live hip-hop musical score. Tai chi demonstrations and a crafty teacup sleeve art activity provide a calming counterpoint. Specialty ****tails and food trucks will be available throughout the evening.
Ticket prices are $25 in advance and $30 at the door; Silk Road Society prices are $15 in advance and $20 at the door. The ticket price includes one free drink, and guests must be 21 years old with valid photo ID to attend. Make sure to check us out on Facebook! For more information, and to buy tickets, visit http://www.asia.si.edu/asiaafterdark/.
Wasn't sure where to post this. This will do
works for me... weird combo though. Whatever it takes to get kids interested, I guess.
Check out this one:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XMUgmP6AglE/Ugrwgt0Be3I/AAAAAAAAAYk/tQr6HO7ie5E/w506-h708/photo.jpg
HD 189733: NASA's Chandra Sees Eclipsing Planet in X-rays for First Time
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2013/hd189733/hd189733_lab.jpg
I was gonna paste the article, but it's better you just go read for yourself through the link.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2013/hd189733/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/encryption-is-less-secure-than-we-thought-0814.html
Encryption is less secure than we thought
For 65 years, most information-theoretic analyses of cryptographic systems have made a mathematical assumption that turns out to be wrong.
http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images/article_images/20130813115313-0.jpg
Muriel Médard is a professor in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering.
PHOTO: BRYCE VICKMARK
August 14, 2013
Information theory — the discipline that gave us digital communication and data compression — also put cryptography on a secure mathematical foundation. Since 1948, when the paper that created information theory (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-shannon-0115.html) first appeared, most information-theoretic analyses of secure schemes have depended on a common assumption.
Unfortunately, as a group of researchers at MIT and the National University of Ireland (NUI) at Maynooth, demonstrated in a paper presented at the recent International Symposium on Information Theory (view PDF) (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6356.pdf), that assumption is false. In a follow-up paper being presented this fall at the Asilomar Conference on Signals and Systems, the same team shows that, as a consequence, the wireless card readers used in many keyless-entry systems may not be as secure as previously thought.
In information theory, the concept of information is intimately entwined with that of entropy. Two digital files might contain the same amount of information, but if one is shorter, it has more entropy. If a compression algorithm — such as WinZip or gzip — worked perfectly, the compressed file would have the maximum possible entropy. That means that it would have the same number of 0s and 1s, and the way in which they were distributed would be totally unpredictable. In information-theoretic parlance, it would be perfectly uniform.
Traditionally, information-theoretic analyses of secure schemes have assumed that the source files are perfectly uniform. In practice, they rarely are, but they’re close enough that it appeared that the standard mathematical analyses still held.
“We thought we’d establish that the basic premise that everyone was using was fair and reasonable,” says Ken Duffy, one of the researchers at NUI. “And it turns out that it’s not.” On both papers, Duffy is joined by his student Mark Christiansen; Muriel Médard, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT; and her student Flávio du Pin Calmon.
The problem, Médard explains, is that information-theoretic analyses of secure systems have generally used the wrong notion of entropy. They relied on so-called Shannon entropy, named after the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon, who taught at MIT from 1956 to 1978.
Shannon entropy is based on the average probability that a given string of bits will occur in a particular type of digital file. In a general-purpose communications system, that’s the right type of entropy to use, because the characteristics of the data traffic will quickly converge to the statistical averages. Although Shannon’s seminal 1948 paper dealt with cryptography, it was primarily concerned with communication, and it used the same measure of entropy in both discussions.
But in cryptography, the real concern isn’t with the average case but with the worst case. A codebreaker needs only one reliable correlation between the encrypted and unencrypted versions of a file in order to begin to deduce further correlations. In the years since Shannon’s paper, information theorists have developed other notions of entropy, some of which give greater weight to improbable outcomes. Those, it turns out, offer a more accurate picture of the problem of codebreaking.
When Médard, Duffy and their students used these alternate measures of entropy, they found that slight deviations from perfect uniformity in source files, which seemed trivial in the light of Shannon entropy, suddenly loomed much larger. The upshot is that a computer turned loose to simply guess correlations between the encrypted and unencrypted versions of a file would make headway much faster than previously expected.
“It’s still exponentially hard, but it’s exponentially easier than we thought,” Duffy says. One implication is that an attacker who simply relied on the frequencies with which letters occur in English words could probably guess a user-selected password much more quickly than was previously thought. “Attackers often use graphics processors to distribute the problem,” Duffy says. “You’d be surprised at how quickly you can guess stuff.”
In their Asilomar paper, the researchers apply the same type of mathematical analysis in a slightly different way. They consider the case in which an attacker is, from a distance, able to make a “noisy” measurement of the password stored on a credit card with an embedded chip or a key card used in a keyless-entry system.
“Noise” is the engineer’s term for anything that degrades an electromagnetic signal — such as physical obstructions, out-of-phase reflections or other electromagnetic interference. Noise comes in lots of different varieties: The familiar white noise of sleep aids is one, but so is pink noise, black noise and more exotic-sounding types of noise, such as power-law noise or Poisson noise.
In this case, rather than prior knowledge about the statistical frequency of the symbols used in a password, the attacker has prior knowledge about the probable noise characteristics of the environment: Phase noise with one set of parameters is more probable than phase noise with another set of parameters, which in turn is more probable than Brownian noise, and so on. Armed with these statistics, an attacker could infer the password stored on the card much more rapidly than was previously thought.
“Some of the approximations that we’re used to making, they make perfect sense in the context of traditional communication,” says Matthieu Bloch, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “You design your system in a framework, and then you test it. But for crypto, you’re actually trying to prove that it’s robust to things you cannot test. So you have to be sure that your assumptions make sense from the beginning. And I think that going back to the assumptions is something people don’t do often enough.”
Bloch doubts that the failure of the uniformity assumption means that cryptographic systems in wide use today are fundamentally insecure. “My guess is that it will show that some of them are slightly less secure than we had hoped, but usually in the process, we’ll also figure out a way of patching them,” he says. The MIT and NUI researchers’ work, he says, “is very constructive, because it’s essentially saying, ‘Hey, we have to be careful.’ But it also provides a methodology to go back and reanalyze all these things.”
Well done!
As we use more resources, we learn just how little control we really have.
Momma don't take no mess.
It's pretty sad what people will do w/o adequate research into the effects of their actions. This is NOT uncommon. Unfortunately.
MASSIVE Louisiana Sinkhole Devours Whole Trees in Seconds Flat
http://io9.com/massive-louisiana-sinkhole-devours-whole-trees-in-secon-1183454446
The Bayou Corne Sinkhole: A massive oil and gas disaster you've probably never heard of
http://io9.com/5967858/the-bayou-corne-sinkhole-a-massive-oil-and-gas-disaster-youve-probably-never-heard-of/
It's around 28-acres-wide now. Not the biggest hole, but relatively in line with what is happening in many places where resource harvesting is taking precedence over proper safeguards under the right conditions. Something to think about. How much energy did YOU consume today?
In any case where desire and ability goes beyond supply, a certain degree of self control needs to be observed. This is no different.
GoldenBrain
08-23-2013, 06:34 PM
That was pretty darn awesome, unless of course you happen to be climbing one of those trees at that moment.
It seems that the severity and number of these giant sinkholes has been increasing lately. It may just be that I'm noticing them more but according to at least one news agency, ABC, the insurance claims on the ones in FL have more than doubled between 2006 and 2009. Maybe the earth is breaking up like in the movie 2012...:eek: Okay, that's just ridiculous, but I do wonder what the cause is for the ones that aren't as easily explainable like the one in Louisiana.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/03/how-sinkholes-can-develop/
Stimulus recipient Tesla Motors … is failing.
Why Did The Tesla Model S Get The Highest Safety Score Ever From The NHTSA?
Because during the roof crush test, the crushing machine exploded at around 4 Gs of force before the roof failed.
That, and it nailed 5 stars in every single test, and numerically, actually exceeded a perfect 5.0.
If you’re asking why it did so well, i.e., what about its construction allowed it to do so well, I can only speak to the frontal crash test and roll-over test:
Frontal test: The lack of an engine allowed exceptional space for a crumple zone, effectively allowing the Model S to dissipate frontal crash energy over a far greater distance and time — i.e., greater impulse — than any other internal combustion engine vehicle.
Roll-over test: the extreme lower center of gravity caused by the massive battery packs meant that the car could not be flipped using conventional testing means. That alone was a big deal, as the car had to be flipped using unorthodox testing methods. Suffice to say, if the roof survived 4 Gs of crushing force as mentioned above, it could certainly handle its own weight when being flipped.
Tesla S … the greatest car … in the world? It’s certainly seeming that way. Let’s see if Clarkson finally agrees.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/08/22/why-did-the-tesla-model-s-get-the-highest-safety-score-ever-from-the-nhtsa/
5.4 outta 5 ain't bad for a failing company :) Not to mention they are single handedly and fundamentally changing how cars are sold.
Sort of off topic, but it made me laugh. It's a fail, but a funny one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98nNpzE6gIs
Texas Measles Outbreak Traced To Anti-Vaccine Megachurch
http://gawker.com/texas-measles-outbreak-traced-to-anti-vaccine-megachurc-1197363514
I'm getting pretty tired of the whole anti vaccine crowd, but this one looked interesting. Even if 1 of every 100 recipients did become autistic (and there is no real evidence to say that is true), it's still better than not taking it. Those parents who choose not to use them are simply riding the backs of those that do. If no parents used them, we'd be so screwed. It's a whole new world. 100 years ago you didn't meet people who were on the other side of the planet a day before. The troglodyte crowd is just getting sad. Part of me wants them all to just move close to each other and rock out some natural selection.
GoldenBrain
09-03-2013, 02:44 PM
Texas Measles Outbreak Traced To Anti-Vaccine Megachurch
http://gawker.com/texas-measles-outbreak-traced-to-anti-vaccine-megachurc-1197363514
I'm getting pretty tired of the whole anti vaccine crowd, but this one looked interesting. Even if 1 of every 100 recipients did become autistic (and there is no real evidence to say that is true), it's still better than not taking it. Those parents who choose not to use them are simply riding the backs of those that do. If no parents used them, we'd be so screwed. It's a whole new world. 100 years ago you didn't meet people who were on the other side of the planet a day before. The troglodyte crowd is just getting sad. Part of me wants them all to just move close to each other and rock out some natural selection.
I totally agree with you. This outbreak was fairly close to us here in N Texas so I'm glad we vaccinated our little boy. Before we vaccinated our child my wife and I dug deep into the available research to determine if there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Our conclusion which aligns with the CDC and the medical establishment in general is that there is no link.
It's our opinion that better detection is the reason for more autism. Also, there is a study out there which can be found in this article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809718 that found pregnant women with hypothyroxinemia in early gestation have nearly a 4-fold increased risk of having a child with autism. Maybe, and this is just my assumption, that the crappy food and drinks that our society is exposed to is wrecking peoples thyroid glands which may be one of the causes for the increase in autism.
I totally agree with you. This outbreak was fairly close to us here in N Texas so I'm glad we vaccinated our little boy. Before we vaccinated our child my wife and I dug deep into the available research to determine if there is a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Our conclusion which aligns with the CDC and the medical establishment in general is that there is no link.
It's our opinion that better detection is the reason for more autism. Also, there is a study out there which can be found in this article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809718 that found pregnant women with hypothyroxinemia in early gestation have nearly a 4-fold increased risk of having a child with autism. Maybe, and this is just my assumption, that the crappy food and drinks that our society is exposed to is wrecking peoples thyroid glands which may be one of the causes for the increase in autism.
I don't know about the diet or whether exposure to more complex chemicals has had an affect, but what I do know is that when you change the guidelines for diagnosing autism to be more inclusive and you see a spike that correlates with that, it's a no brainer. Sure, it should be watched, but all it did was rise sharply then level off. It's pretty clear with the proper context what happened there.
But let's pretend it DID cause autism. Still, better than not taking it!
The number I hear most thrown around is 1 in every 100. Are you ****ing kidding me? Those are awesome odds considering the alternative. At best, the child mortality rate was 1 in 3 not too long ago. Of course that isn't all due to vaccinations, but they are an important part of the equation that led to the statistics we ENJOY today. Biology is by far my weakest area in the hard sciences, but even to me this is clear as day.
SoCo KungFu
09-03-2013, 06:18 PM
Can you post the title of that medscape article? I can't get it through medscape but if its an actual publication then I'm sure I can through my OSU account.
On maternal hypothyroxinemia. There's some conflicting research out there. Thyroid 2009 had a study concluding that there was a risk of "delayed neurobehavioral development" in association with below normal FT4. But their sample sizes were incredibly small. Out of 300+ women only 44 were found to be FT4 deficient after iodine supplementation (with these studies, you can't really ethically deny them supplementation if they're in need, so basically you're limited to those who even after following proper supplement protocols, are still deficient). The reasoning for this is fairly obvious, it'd potentially put the fetus at risk.
Another from this year in Clinical Endocrinology came to the conclusion that in animal tests, early (1st half) pregnancy occurrence of maternal hypothyroxinemia can bring risk of altered neurogenesis (but not in 2nd half of pregnancy). However, that paper cautions that it has not been able to be demonstrated in human studies. It also said that interventions didn't seem to improve IQ measures in the animal trials. This could parallel findings in a study set to be published later this year in British Journal of Nutrition that came to the conclusion that consumption of iodized salt and other iodized supplements is not significantly associated with child neural development.
As far as spikes in reporting, better screening protocols. We can diagnose it at a younger age now. And more inclusive diagnoses. Because we can discern more subtle presentations with modern methods, people that 15 years ago would simply be considered "slow" are properly assessed for varying degrees of mild autism.
The fact that it seems to follow families with a history of the condition, and effects males far more frequently than females, leads to the idea that its linked to genetics, particularly issues with the X chromosome. This is also supported by the correlations between environmental contaminants and autism, particularly heavy metals which also are known causes of genetic damage.
This whole deal is pretty aggravating really. I look at the anti vaxxer movement as potentially more dangerous than the climate change issue. Its killing people right now. And its so obviously erroneous. The sad part is, the people that advocate this crap have become to crystallized to acknowledge the evidence against them. They defend their position with diatribes on big pharm and cover ups of info against vaccine safety. Yet, while doing so, fail to realize that while Wakefield was spouting all his crap, he was in the process of developing his own competing measles vaccine. Conflict of interest much? No he didn't have anything at all to gain by discrediting the MMR vaccine...$$$$$$
GoldenBrain
09-03-2013, 06:56 PM
Can you post the title of that medscape article? I can't get it through medscape but if its an actual publication then I'm sure I can through my OSU account.
Hey SoCo,
I like when you weigh in on these medical topics.
Here's the title of that medscape article... Autism Risk Linked to Maternal Thyroid Dysfunction.
I don't know if this helps but here's a link to the publication in the Annals of Neurology. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.23976/abstract
Hey SoCo,
I like when you weigh in on these medical topics.
Ya. Me too. It's nice to be hand fed. :) Always thoughtful and informative. I find that stuff fascinating. I wish I had the time and head space to dive right in. Like, I understand what SoCo wrote, but I have no idea about the details of things like maternal hypothyroxinemia. Gotta love google!
Wakefield is a dick. Can't stand the smug *****. That is all.
GoldenBrain
09-03-2013, 10:09 PM
Ya. Me too. It's nice to be hand fed. :) Always thoughtful and informative. I find that stuff fascinating. I wish I had the time and head space to dive right in. Like, I understand what SoCo wrote, but I have no idea about the details of things like maternal hypothyroxinemia. Gotta love google!
Wakefield is a dick. Can't stand the smug *****. That is all.
I think it'd be really cool to shadow SoCo at his job for a few days. I'm pretty sure much of what he does is way over my lowly 138 IQ but I would definitely appreciate the learning opportunity. For that matter, shadowing an electrical engineer like yourself would be pretty freaking cool as well. Much respect!
And ya, that Wakefield fella is a total douche! I wonder just how many people will suffer as a result of his bunk research?
Now this is awesome!
Walkie Talkie City skyscraper renamed Walkie Scorchie after beam of light melts Jaguar car parked beneath it
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/walkie-talkie-city-skyscraper-renamed-walkie-scorchie-after-beam-of-light-melts-jaguar-car-parked-beneath-it-8794970.html
I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but when I look at the building, I have to wonder why the possibility wasn't discussed in the planning stage? I mean, LOOK at it, lol. And that glare for everyone throughout the day... uggh. WTF, right? Or am I being too judgemental?
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/121/29tower415.jpg
It's a cool design though. I wonder if they used tension cables in the slab.
I think it'd be really cool to shadow SoCo at his job for a few days. I'm pretty sure much of what he does is way over my lowly 138 IQ but I would definitely appreciate the learning opportunity. For that matter, shadowing an electrical engineer like yourself would be pretty freaking cool as well. Much respect!
And ya, that Wakefield fella is a total douche! I wonder just how many people will suffer as a result of his bunk research?
Job shadowing as your job would be pretty sweet. Keep you on your toes anyways.
GoldenBrain
09-03-2013, 11:59 PM
Job shadowing as your job would be pretty sweet. Keep you on your toes anyways.
Hahaha, true dat! I assume you mean the dogs. We ended up getting animal control involved. They found that our neighbor who has 10 acres bordering our 16 acres was hoarding pit bull dogs. There's a leash law in this county so that means dog owners have to keep TOTAL control of their dogs. This guy had 8 more pits which he surrendered to animal control. Well, I say surrendered, it took animal control a week to round them all up. That makes a total of 12 if you count the 4 that I had to kill. They left him with one 3 legged dachshund and two really old shaggy mutts that he promised to keep in a fenced area. It turned out that he wasn't even feeding the pits, just giving them water, which means they were roaming and feeding in packs on several different properties around the area. No wonder they ran me down, they were starving. At least now the mystery has been solved as to why all the rabbits around here have disappeared. There are also some flyers posted on some signs at the entrance of this country neighborhood regarding missing pet dogs so I would hazard a guess that they met the same fate as the rabbits. Anywho, my wife and I feel a lot safer now so all that's left to worry about are coyotes, bob cats, cougars, bear, boar...etc...:D We are going to install a tall fence, better known as a game barrier to pen up this property, so very soon we won't even have to worry about the wild critters and I can get some goats and free range chickens.:)
GoldenBrain
09-04-2013, 12:09 AM
I was reading about that Walkie Talkie skyscraper and I have to say that Archimedes would be proud.
There are several other stories about it with video of eggs being fried, bike seats melting like the Jaguar, carpets catching on fire...etc. It's pretty amazing that building a giant parabolic mirror didn't set off any red flags in any of the engineers minds. Apparently this only happens at a certain time of the year due to the position of the sun, but still...:rolleyes:
GeneChing
09-04-2013, 09:16 AM
Some one should build a restaurant under the Walkie Talkie skyscraper that uses it's heat ray beams to cook. :cool:
Hahaha, true dat! I assume you mean the dogs.
Actually I did not mean the dogs. I just meant job shadowing as your(anyones) actual job. Like Mike Rowe but in other fields, not just "dirty jobs". Sorry about the ambiguous wording. I meant staying on your toes because you would always be a greenhorn. But a pack of angry dogs will do it too. :)
That being said, you want to generate electricity, you build **** and you grow stuff. Whatever else you do that is interesting would just be icing on the cake. I can dig it.
As for the tower, you really have to wonder if it came up at all. Was it mentioned and laughed at? Did they even consider doing any math? Did it go right over their heads? This isn't some shanty shack in an unregulated district. This tower went through some serious public inquiry to be approved. The main complaint was heritage and blocking views kind of stuff. Amazing that nobody looked at the pic and said "ummm, wait... what?"
This is what happens when art and money take precedence over function. The architect says “to respect the city’s historic character, following the contour of the river and the medieval streets that bound the site, while further contributing to the evolution of the high-rise building type.” It doesn't hurt that you get to increase floor space on the higher floors either. :rolleyes:
GoldenBrain
09-04-2013, 11:08 AM
Actually I did not mean the dogs. I just meant job shadowing as your(anyones) actual job.
Ah, I get it. Sorry, it was kind of late, and as you can imagine this dog issue is still on my mind. I reread your statement and it makes perfect sense now.
GeneChing
09-05-2013, 01:39 PM
...but I'm sure this needs to be included here.
There's a vid if you follow the link. It's kinda creepy...
Artist creates faces from DNA left in public (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/tech/innovation/dna-face-sculptures/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook)
By Natalie Angley, CNN
updated 3:10 PM EDT, Wed September 4, 2013
(CNN) -- We leave genetic traces of ourselves wherever we go -- in a strand of hair left on the subway or in saliva on the side of a glass at a cafe.
So you may want to think twice the next time you spit out your gum or drop a cigarette butt in public.
New York artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg might pick it up, extract the DNA and create a 3-D face that could look like you. Her project, "Stranger Visions," fashions portrait sculptures from bits of genetic material collected in public places.
"The idea for the project came from this fascination with a single hair," Dewey-Hagborg told CNN. "This turned into a research project for me exploring exactly what I could discover about someone from an artifact they left behind."
Art created by using a person's DNA
As it turns out, she could discover a whole lot.
Her process starts with finding a sample in a public place -- a strand of hair, a cigarette butt or a chewed piece of gum -- anything that might contain cells from a person's body.
"You want something that is relatively fresh," she said. "Nothing that has been stepped on or that looks like it's been sitting around for ages."
Dewey-Hagborg takes the sample to a community biotechnology lab in Brooklyn called Genspace. There she uses a standard DNA extraction protocol to mine the DNA, purify it and use it in polymerase chain reactions. The technical process is outlined on her blog.
"From a cigarette butt, I can learn where someone's ancestors likely came from, their gender, eye color, hair color, complexion, freckles, their tendency to be overweight and a handful of dimensions of the face as well with a certain likelihood," she said.
Once she obtains the sequencing information, she takes the traits she's gathered from the individual's DNA and feeds it into a computer program to generate a 3-D model of a face.
"The way that I use code is a lot like how a sketch artist would use a pencil," she said. "I'll take the code, and then I'll generate different versions of a face. I'll use the code to enhance certain facial features or decrease them based on what I find in the DNA."
It takes about eight hours to print one of Dewey-Hagborg's faces in 3-D at NYU's Advanced Media Studio. Once it's printed in what looks like a block of powder, the face is dug out, baked and hardened with a superglue-like substance.
But there are limitations. The faces are not exact replicas of the stranger who left the DNA behind. Dewey-Hagborg considers it more of a family resemblance.
"It's important to understand that these portraits are a general likeness. They're not exact reconstructions," she said. "They'll have things in common with the person, but they won't look exactly like the person."
She is also unable to determine ages from the DNA samples. So all of her faces look around 30.
Dewey-Hagborg started the "Stranger Visions" project with her own self-portrait about two years ago.
"Even though I was the one developing the code and training the system, I wasn't really sure how much it would end up looking like me," she said. "I was particularly impressed with how much the overall facial shape resembled me."
Reaction to the project has been mostly positive, although some observers feel her work raises t***** ethical questions.
"This is very creepy," wrote a commenter on a Smithsonian blog post. "We need to pursue our privacy post haste, if this is what is available to the public."
Dewey-Hagborg said she understands that some people could be put off by the portraits or consider them an intrusion of privacy. But that's also the point. She wants her work to raise questions about genetic surveillance and privacy issues.
"If people find it to be a little creepy, that's OK," she said. "It's meant to make you aware of these issues and make you aware that this is possible."
After all, "Stranger Visions" is an art project. And most conceptual art produces more questions than answers.
"It's meant to be an exploration at the intersection of art and technology and science," she said. "And it's meant to be a provocation."
One of the more fascinating things to stem from the great leaps in genetics are the legal ramifications. It'll be interesting to watch that unfold.
I'm also really curious to see how all this patent reform turns out. In relation to genetics, but also just in general. We move so much faster than those laws were designed for.
I think a persons genome should be their own. Any purposeful use should require consent. Rendering images is whatever, but I can see all sorts of ways it can get ugly. It should be illegal to purposely store anyones samples w/o consent. We should lay the foundations for the laws of the future when this stuff becomes more advanced and more accessible.
wenshu
09-06-2013, 07:12 AM
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/05/elon-musk-shows-off-his-crazy-iron-man-inspired-3d-modeling-setup/
The Energy Department is Full of Hugely Wasteful Spending, But Can't Afford to Make Plutonium for NASA
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2013/20130913-the-doe-is-full-of-wasteful-spending-but-forbidden-to-help-nasa-make-plutonium-for-space-missions.html
Here's a small bit...
Virtually every major project under the National Nuclear Security Administration’s oversight is behind schedule and over budget — the result, watchdogs and government auditors say, of years of lax accountability and nearly automatic annual budget increases for the agency responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpile.
The NNSA has racked up $16 billion in cost overruns on 10 major projects that are a combined 38 years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports. Other projects have been canceled or suspended, despite hundreds of millions of dollars already spent, because they grew too bloated.
Raffaello D'Andrea: The astounding athletic power of quadcopters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
Lightsaber?
Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
:p
GoldenBrain
10-04-2013, 06:36 PM
That was a really interesting article. I'm not sure about lightsabers because you'd still have to carry around a super cooled cloud of atoms for the light to slow down in. Still, it'd be cool (pun intended) to have a lightsaber. I'm sure they'll figure it out one day.
Two things I thought were just as interesting in the article. One, how to freeze atoms and molecules with lasers. I didn't know how this process worked so I found another article giving a brief explanation (below is the link). I'm thinking a freeze ray would be pretty awesome...:cool:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100919/full/news.2010.478.html
The other thing is at the end of the article where they mention the possibility of creating three-dimensional structures using this process. 3d laser printers comes to mind. We moved from 2d inkjet printers to 2d laser printers so why not do the same with 3d printers?
RenDaHai
10-04-2013, 09:29 PM
Lightsaber?
Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
:p
That was awesome! That was far more interesting to me than everything I've read on the Higgs boson this year. Huge implications.
Yeah, light sabers aren't gonna happen. Not anytime soon, anyways.
While I agree that on the surface this seems more interesting, the higgs problem was/is(depending on how you look at it) a huge deal. It's all about predictions. After such a long time, it's nice to get that validation. It can be frustrating when you are pretty sure something is there, you just can't prove it. There is some crossover here, though.
As far as practical uses for this... we'll see. But putting that aside, this is a pretty big step in that particular field. For a scientist(a real one who values the work over themselves) the only thing better than being right is being shown to be wrong. Being right is great and all, but being proven wrong = more growth. And after all, that is what this is all about, no?
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. [...] I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.”
"I don’t see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish academy just decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize — I’ve already gotten the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding a thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it — those are the real things. The honors are unreal to me. I don’t believe in honors.”
"[The Big Bang] is a much more exciting story to many people than the tales which other people used to make up, when wondering about the universe we lived in on the back of a turtle or something like that. They were wonderful stories, but the truth is so much more remarkable. And, so, what’s the wonder in physics to me is that it’s revealed the truth is so remarkable.”
Feynman
You can classify people into two categories, those who fear the unknown and those who bask in the unknown. I completely agree with Feynman about honors. If one is truly remarkable, the honors mean nothing. If one is not remarkable, then honors mean far more. Those who are truly extraordinary, who do extraordinary things don't need to play dress up and have a ceremony. The real honor is seeing others use and build on your work. I have a mistrust of anyone who believes in the importance of playing the whole "look at me, I'm important" game. If your goal is the honors themselves, then you aren't in it for the right reasons.
This is especially true of martial arts. If you feel the need to play dress up, you are in this for the wrong reasons. I find it fascinating the lengths some people will go to find meaning. They walk right past the meaning and push head first into the trappings for some sort of distorted insecure comfort. To me this is a sickness of the mind. A massive inferiority complex. It may push you to achieve, but if it's for the wrong reasons, what's the point... Really? With true achievement, recognition is inevitable. It's just a matter of time. If recognition is the goal, what have you truly achieved?
SoCo KungFu
10-05-2013, 09:00 AM
Depends, the reality is, in today's world, being right correlates to being able to put food on the table. Capitalism has taken over science and we have no way out of that given the extreme costs of pushing the envelope at this point. Even real scientists have bills to pay.
While I agree with the ideal, things is, it was kinda easy for him to talk. Feynman, "got his." We tend to only follow the musings of those that were most accomplished, or rather, most recognized. Want to talk about publication bias? I wonder how the survey distribution would play out if we spent more time quoting the legions of the un-thanked nameless that spent their entire lives never having their work recognized and certainly never landing those few, coveted, cush jobs with nice benefits (which are seriously far less common than people with a certain political mentality like to think).
Gotta say, every day something occurs that lights a signal fire on an impending decision I'm doing daily internal debate over. Do I really want to go all the way to a PhD? Do I really want to spend the rest of my life whoring out for ever diminishing parcels of grant money, jockeying over publications while having to prove my value to the mouth breathing bean counters and scientifically illiterate that couldn't care less about basic research?
Interesting questions are great. But when the system is rigged such that the vast majority of us end up as near indentured labor to an army of sub humans who aren't intelligent enough to realize the value in science and lacking in moral foundation enough to use that stupidity to play along in rigging everything in existence to funnel money into their pockets, it sort of messes with your motivation to go in to work in the morning, ya know?
Of course, if I were to stop where I'm at, I'd probably be in one of those jobs that just got furloughed...go figure...
SoCo KungFu
10-05-2013, 09:09 AM
All I know is, this past week, not one night was I in bed earlier than 2:30 am. And nearly every morning I'm up by 6am. I do this for a "generous" stipend of about $1350/month (after taxes/deductions). Oh and the satisfaction of intellectual growth. I just wish intellectual growth could fix the window and pay for a security system in my truck that's been broken into 3 times now in the past 2 months...
Gotta say, every day something occurs that lights a signal fire on an impending decision I'm doing daily internal debate over. Do I really want to go all the way to a PhD? Do I really want to spend the rest of my life whoring out for ever diminishing parcels of grant money, jockeying over publications while having to prove my value to the mouth breathing bean counters and scientifically illiterate that couldn't care less about basic research?
That's some quote worthy **** right there. Lol.
I hear you, and I agree in principle. But why would you get a Phd if money is your goal? If you have that capacity, you could probably exploit any number of areas in order to secure monetary rewards. People who get Phd's are doing it because they love the field, pushed by parents or desire the social standing that comes with the title. Of course it's not so black and white and one can be any combination of the above, but you get my point. If you don't have a passion for thankless research, why do thankless research? If you do have a passion for it, then you do what you have to to make it work, but the goal is the research, not the money. Yes we have to eat, but if you can do cancer research, then you certainly have the capacity to be any number of things that pay well.
If you simply give in to the norm, then you don't stand a chance of having much more than the norm. You get what you deserve. If you stand on principle you may get run through, but at least you are laying a bit more foundation for a better world. Again, if your goals are simply to eat, go be a tradesman or some d-bag entrepreneur.
Feynman didn't turn down the prize. He knew what it meant for his career. He did what he had to do. Just like how everyday I smile and pretend to care what people are feeling. It makes my life easier. But on the inside, I stay true to myself. We all have to front to get what we want. The trick is to not buy into your own front. That's the difference.
All I know is, this past week, not one night was I in bed earlier than 2:30 am. And nearly every morning I'm up by 6am. I do this for a "generous" stipend of about $1350/month (after taxes/deductions). Oh and the satisfaction of intellectual growth. I just wish intellectual growth could fix the window and pay for a security system in my truck that's been broken into 3 times now in the past 2 months...
Well, if you're good at what you do, it will pay off later.
It's a bit easier for me because my interests are somewhat aligned with peoples selfish demand. I don't do it for them, but it's cool that people are interested in the product of the work.
Basically, if being recognized puffs you up more than the thing you are recognized for, you need to take a long look at yourself. But there is no shame in exploiting such recognition in order to further your interests.
It's like the difference between a politician who gets to office in order to make changes they believe in and a politician whose goal is to stay in office. And of course, there is a grey area there. A point where doing what you have to do to stay in office in order to do what you want to do. But that's where most people lose themselves. And for anyone who has a career that is geared toward objective fact, this is a precarious place to be.
SoCo KungFu
10-05-2013, 10:31 AM
Money and recognition is never the goal. But recognition = money, and money = not starving. Idealism doesn't work too well when you're debating between eating dinner or paying to keep the lights on.
You basically have 2 options in biological research. If you go private sector, you work pharm if you're biomed or you go into consulting if you're natural sciences. PhD positions have little job security. If money grubbers decide your work is no longer profitable, you get the can. The lab techs (mostly MS) tend to fair better as they are paid less and are basically there for a technical skill unrelated to a specific specialty.
If you're interested in basic research, you run the gauntlet of academia.
What most people don't know is, if you're in an academic position doing research, you make very little salary from the university (unless you're one of those very few that got tenure). You eat with whatever is left over from your grant awards. That's after you've paid for equipment costs, paid staff, covered the tuition of grad students working in your lab, paid publication costs (because you actually pay them to run your work which they then profit from in subscription fees...) etc.
Grants require recognition. If you want to survive, recognition is a necessity. You simply can't get a job if you can't prove that you can bring in money. Do a cursory search on faculty CV's, one of the longest sections is nearly always a section outlining the monetary awards they have won.
My point is, its easy to bemoan those in research that strive for recognition, if one isn't in a position where their own survival is contingent upon such recognition. The system has been poisoned and we are just trying to do our best to make it a day at a time. And its high hypocritical when the institutions that stand to profit the most from our mental powerlifting, are the same ones trying to cram the philosophical high road down our throats while pocketing proceeds from our research. And don't even get me started on the crap with equipment procurement. Oh you just came up with an entirely awesome, new ground idea that could have far ranging implications? You put in the work, devised a genius experiment? You wrote the grant that allowed the acquisition of cutting edge tech? Sorry, state law says that's not actually yours, it belongs to the state via university ownership. BTW, that university decided not to extend your contract because they can pay adjunct faculty a fraction of your salary and the football coach needs a raise. Wish you luck in the next endeavor, thanks for that nifty new sequencer though...
Let me clarify, I'm *****ing. I'm not going to cut short and settle for a masters consolation prize. The quest to find an elusive answer is compelling. If I cared about money, I'd have used my background in physiology to cross over into health physics and got a job pulling $70k start up with just a BS.
But **** be f'd up in here ya? Money should be an incentive. It shouldn't be the case where you have to decide between great deal of self sacrifice for idealistic goals vs. living free of debt. Its not about wanting to be rich. Its about living in fear that you'll be canned because you aren't a bringing in enough cash to warrant your continuation. And in that event, you aren't following those high ground, intellectual pursuits either way. I mean, we could go back to a time where the only scientists were those endowed with wealth, or clergy. But where would that leave us?
SoCo KungFu
10-08-2013, 09:37 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102559.htm
Every little bit exposes more and more how un-unique humans actually are.
I would make a distinction between what I call honors(in the context of my original point) and recognition for good work. If somebody wants to give you grant money and some medal, by all means, take that. My issue is with the chip on the shoulder that can come with it. The misdirected pride. Know what I mean?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102559.htm
Every little bit exposes more and more how un-unique humans actually are.
I wonder how the theists will readjust. After the denial stops working, that is.
SoCo KungFu
10-09-2013, 10:09 PM
I wonder how the theists will readjust. After the denial stops working, that is.
Thing is, it doesn't stop. Those that want, will always put up that wall. Even in science we see it. In behavioral studies we aren't allowed to call animal behavior empathy, altruism, etc. Its always tagged xxxx-like. Never mind that we can tie behaviors to chemical signatures, signatures that are conserved through evolutionary pathways (oxytocin for example); but we still aren't supposed to humanize the other animals. Same general mechanism, but somehow its not of the same thing...whatever.
I don't know how it is in other countries, in the states the other alternative is hard solipsism born out in a form of presuppositionalism, particularly among the lesser educated and more fanatical (southern baptists for instance). Those are a particularly annoying group to ever have to speak to. Their brains are likened to a poorly written command loop that gets stuck in infinite iteration, only they have no ESC button...
Yeah. Bias is a part of who and what we are. There are more types of bias than I care to count. Being honest with yourself about your own bias is pretty important when trying to be objective.
That kinda ties in with the honors thing too. Many who are proud of themselves, let recognition go to their heads etc, often lose touch with that awareness.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6PfBfmj9BPw/Uln9hMRteMI/AAAAAAAANu0/DIURb_WuyPA/w830-h597-no/PIA17041_orbits_of_potentially_hazardous_asteroids _945.jpg
One of NASA's most important purposes, aside from incredible innovation and discovery, is its ongoing search for near-Earth objects whose size and power pose a significant threat to humanity. While shut down, however, NASA's workforce has been drastically cut, resulting in less eyes on the sky. NASA's public relations have also taken a hit, shutting down various twitter accounts, including @AsteroidWatch, an account whose primary purpose is to communicate information about near-Earth objects to followers and media outlets.
In a 60 minutes report that aired on October 6th, Amy Mainzer, an astrophysicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) remarked that “...we know about some of the most distant galaxies in the known universe, and yet, we don't really know everything that's right in our own backyard.” By partnering with amateur and other professional astronomers across the world, NASA has been able to locate, classify and predict the course of over 10,000 objects of various sizes and orbits within the vicinity of Earth. Though this number may sound high, scientists at JPL estimate the total number of near-Earth objects–capable of at least city-wide destruction– to be near 1 million. The asteroid that smashed windows and injured hundreds in Chelyabinsk, Russia in February was completely unknown to NASA and its partners before its impact in a relatively unpopulated area. However, the outcome could have been much worse if impact had occurred over a large metropolitan city.
With NASA at full capacity and fully funded to 1% of the federal budget, our best and brightest scientists can return to their planet-saving work. Without their expertise, those of us on Earth are essentially playing a life-threatening game of cosmic roulette. Tell Congress to put NASA back to work through our website!
Take action here: http://www.penny4nasa.org/take-action/
Watch the 60 Minutes Segment, featuring Anderson Cooper and various near-Earth object experts from JPL: http://goo.gl/Uz9iL6
Penny4Nasa, make it happen.
Grasshopper 744m Test | Single Camera (Hexacopter)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ZDkItO-0a4
Impressive.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HchC9e4t1iE/TvWoCByJdbI/AAAAAAAAD6o/9jJ84JbBfvc/w506-h385/Schermafbeelding%2B2011-12-24%2Bom%2B11.21.14.png
GoldenBrain
10-14-2013, 08:31 PM
That Grasshopper test was really cool, but I think I might be more impressed by the stability of the Hexacopter and the clarity of it's camera. It was so clear and stable that the first couple of seconds almost seemed fake to me.
That Grasshopper test was really cool, but I think I might be more impressed by the stability of the Hexacopter and the clarity of it's camera. It was so clear and stable that the first couple of seconds almost seemed fake to me.
I doubt it was flown by hand. Not that it wouldn't be fun to fly one around a launch.
With positioning systems you can walk over, grab it, throw it in whatever direction(not breaking it) and it'll just come back to where it was in a clean stable manner. Did I post that clip of them balancing sticks and wine glasses during complex maneuvering? Dude was throwing balls at them and they just bounced it back to the guy? I can't remember.
You can even damage a rotor, or lose it all together and they can still maintain stable flight, they just spin using two opposing rotors that are still in good shape.
That's funny though. The hex is cool, but I am in awe of the grasshopper. Not an easy task. I can build a hex, I cannot build a grasshopper. :p
Raffaello D'Andrea: The astounding athletic power of quadcopters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
There it is. Programming so many sensors is a TON of work. These guys do good work. Every time you add a new variable, you seem to get 40,000 new problems! It really gives you an appreciation for the phrase "keeping it simple". Less can be more. But for some tasks, much more is required. Which in turn creates new problems. lol. You have to love this **** or it will drive you mad. Especially when hard things come easy, and easy things come hard. Such is life, I guess.
GoldenBrain
10-14-2013, 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by Syn7
Raffaello D'Andrea: The astounding athletic power of quadcopters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
I want one! I have no idea what I'd do with it other than fly it around the farm, but it'd still be fun.:D
So you see what I mean about making a wifi quad is peanuts compared to the work going into something like automated systems with such a large amount of real time information. The applications are endless. I wonder how long till it becomes a problem and needs to be regulated like any other traffic? In the near future we're gonna see a ton of drones. Civilian, corporate and "otherwise".
I want one! I have no idea what I'd do with it other than fly it around the farm, but it'd still be fun.:D
Surveillance with laser sights! Scare off unwanted predators. :mad:
You could make lil missiles by modified hobby rocket motors. You could fit quite a few lil launch tubes on a decent sized QC. :p
GoldenBrain
10-14-2013, 10:00 PM
I understand totally. A few years ago, before I left the world of IT, I had a few buddies with indoor helicopters that we were able to fly around the building using our iPhones. I can only imagine what a problem it could turn into if everybody out there has their own drone. I'm sure it'll be regulated just like any other type of air traffic. But, really, even if it's regulated how are the regulators going to be able to trace who is flying said drone from said untraceable device?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/persuading-light-to-mix-it-up-with-matter-1024.html
Persuading light to mix it up with matter
MIT team documents a never-before-seen coupling of photons with electrons on the surface of an exotic crystal.
October 24, 2013
Researchers at MIT have succeeded in producing and measuring a coupling of photons and electrons on the surface of an unusual type of material called a topological insulator. This type of coupling had been predicted by theorists, but never observed.
The researchers suggest that this finding could lead to the creation of materials whose electronic properties could be “tuned” in real time simply by shining precise laser beams at them. The work “opens up a new avenue for optical manipulation of quantum states of matter,” says Nuh Gedik, the Lawrence C. (1944) and Sarah W. Biedenharn Associate Professor of Physics and senior author of a paper published this week in Science.
Gedik, postdoc Yihua Wang (now at Stanford University), and two other MIT researchers carried out the experiments using a technique Gedik’s lab has been developing for several years. Their method involves shooting femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) pulses of mid-infrared light at a sample of material and observing the results with an electron spectrometer, a specialized high-speed camera the team developed.
They demonstrated the existence of a quantum-mechanical mixture of electrons and photons, known as a Floquet-Bloch state, in a crystalline solid. As first theorized by Swiss physicist Felix Bloch, electrons move in a crystal in a regular, repeating pattern dictated by the periodic structure of the crystal lattice. Photons are electromagnetic waves that have a distinct, regular frequency; their interaction with matter leads to Floquet states, named after the French mathematician Gaston Floquet. “Entangling” electrons with photons in a coherent manner generates the Floquet-Bloch state, which is periodic both in time and space.
Victor Galitski, an associate professor of physics at the University of Maryland who was not involved in this research, says, “The importance of this work is difficult to overestimate.” He says it “opens new avenues not only for optical control of topological states, but also more generally for engineering of new kinds of electronic states in solid-state systems.”
The researchers mixed the photons from an intense laser pulse with the exotic surface electrons on a topological insulator. Their high-speed camera captured snapshots of the exotic state, from its generation to its rapid disappearance, a process lasting only a few hundred femtoseconds. They also found there were different kinds of mixed states when the polarization of the photons changed.
Their findings suggest that it’s possible to alter the electronic properties of a material — for example, changing it from a conductor to a semiconductor — just by changing the laser beam’s polarization. Normally, to produce such dramatic changes in a material’s properties, “you have to do something violent to it,” Gedik says. “But in this case, it may be possible to do this just by shining light on it. That actually modifies how electrons move in this system. And when we do this, the light does not even get absorbed.”
In other situations, light can modify a material’s behavior — but only when it’s absorbed, transferring its energy to the material. In this experiment, Gedik says, the light’s energy is below the absorption threshold. This is exciting, he says, because it opens up the possibility of switching a material’s behavior back and forth without inducing other effects, such as heating — which would happen if the light were absorbed.
It will take some time to assess possible applications, Gedik says. But, he suggests, this could be a way of engineering materials for specific functions. “Suppose you want a material to do something — to conduct electricity, or to be transparent, for example. We usually do this by chemical means. With this new method, it may be possible to do this by simply shining light on the materials.”
For example, a property called a bandgap — a crucial characteristic for materials used in computer chips and solar cells — can be altered by shining a polarized laser beam at the material, Wang says. “You can directly change it, open the bandgap, just with light. It means you can change it from a metal to a semiconductor, for example,” he says.
Gedik says that while this experiment was done using bismuth selenide crystals, a basic topological insulator, “what we have done is not specific to topological insulators. It should also be realizable in other materials as well, such as graphene.”
“In solid-state physics, we often have no other choice but to rely on serendipity when looking for interesting materials,” Galitski says. The new MIT findings “partially challenge this fundamental paradigm by experimentally demonstrating that one can control at will the band structure of a material by subjecting it to an intense optical pulse.”
In addition to Gedik and Wang, the team included Pablo Jarillo-Herrero, the Mitsui Career Development Associate Professor in Contemporary Technology, and visiting scientist Hadar Steinberg, both of MIT’s physics department. The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Army Research Office, and made use of shared facilities at the MIT Center for Materials Science.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/faculty-profile-paulo-lozano-1022.html
Big plans for small spacecraft
Paulo Lozano is designing tiny ion thrusters for the next generation of satellites
October 22, 2013
It’s hard to miss the rocket engine in Paulo Lozano’s MIT office. The 100-lb. propulsion system — about as big as a car’s tire and built almost entirely of stainless steel — sits in a large glass showcase. The engine is the type of bulky hardware that powers many of today’s spacecraft to the moon, planets and far-off asteroids like Ceres and Vesta.
In contrast, it’s relatively easy to overlook a very small package that sits amid some clutter on Lozano’s desk. Though unassuming at first glance, the device — the size and weight of a Lego brick — may be the future of space propulsion, one day taking the place of bulkier, more expensive rocket engines.
Lozano, an associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT, is designing tiny ion thrusters to cheaply and efficiently propel shoebox-sized satellites, known as “CubeSats,” through space. The thrusters, which can run on solar power, contain a small amount of liquid propellant that, when electrified, creates a stream of ions that are released from microscale nozzles as puffs of charged gas — generating a thrust that can propel a small satellite forward.
Currently, once launched into a low orbit around Earth, CubeSats are “left tumbling in space,” as Lozano describes it, drifting along with the natural pull of the planet’s orbit until the satellite burns up in the atmosphere. While propulsion systems would enable such tiny probes to travel further into space, conventional combustion-based systems are too bulky to fit onboard a CubeSat.
By contrast, Lozano’s ion thrusters — even if combined in an array — would take up minimal power and real estate, providing an efficient and low-cost option for exploring the solar system.
“The goal is to make [CubeSats] do most of the things we already do with big satellites, except in a less expensive way,” Lozano says. “People have very big plans for these very small spacecraft.”
An interest takes flight
Growing up in Mexico City, Lozano never missed an episode of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos: A Personal Voyage,” a television series that inspired a lifelong interest in space exploration. When his father came home with a telescope for Lozano, it was “an eye-opener”: The young space enthusiast quickly learned to train the scope on distant stars, and on his favorite planet, Jupiter.
“It’s such a massive planet that rotates every 10 hours, and when you see little dots around Jupiter, which are its moons, you cannot believe you have in front of you some sort of solar system in miniature,” Lozano says. “And you say to yourself, ‘This is out of this world, literally.’”
Unlike most kids in his neighborhood, Lozano chose to spend much of his free time not on the playground or the soccer fields, but in a bookstore. At the time, there were few public libraries in the city, and his mother would bring him to a local bookstore, where he recalls, “It was so difficult for her to get me out — it was like my playground.”
He remembers reading up on a wide range of subjects, and soon became engrossed in the science of flight. Airplanes were of particular interest to Lozano, who remembers trying to build a cardboard replica as a boy.
“I had an old motorcycle, and my dream was to remove the engine and put it together in some sort of structure,” Lozano says. “But I knew nothing of aerodynamics, and it never flew.”
Casting this minor hurdle aside, Lozano continued to learn about aerospace and other fields of science. His persistent curiosity paid off, and he eventually received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics engineering from ITESM and CINVESTAV, engineering universities in Mexico.
‘The heart of every system’
To continue his studies, Lozano looked to MIT, and was soon accepted as a graduate student in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. There, he discovered a subject that melded his interests in physics and aerospace: propulsion.
“There are so many exciting areas in aerospace, but propulsion was for me the heart of every system — the heart of the plane, the engine, the spacecraft and rocket,” Lozano says. “It was natural for me to gravitate toward propulsion.”
Soon after settling in at MIT, Lozano joined the Space Power and Propulsion Laboratory, led by professors Daniel Hastings and Manuel Martinez-Sanchez. The lab, now the Space Propulsion Laboratory, was in the midst of transition: Since its founding in the 1980s, it had mostly produced theoretical work, generating very few experiments. Lozano helped transform the lab into a hardware facility, installing its first vacuum chamber in which to test new thruster designs.
Specifically, Martinez-Sanchez envisioned the lab as a testing ground for miniaturized thrusters, just powerful enough to propel small satellites in space. At the time, the aerospace community was starting to consider the potential of small satellites, but talk of small-scale propulsion systems was still premature.
“The original plan for miniaturizing electric propulsion was just taking one of these big engines and making it smaller,” Lozano says. “But the physics doesn’t work that way — that’s the problem.”
So the team tried new approaches, testing miniature plasma thrusters, colloid thrusters and, finally, ion electrospray thrusters, which worked theoretically, experimentally and at a microscale. Lozano, who took over this year as director of the Space Propulsion Laboratory, has since focused his work on improving the ion electrospray thruster design, and hopes to launch an array of thrusters on a CubeSat mission within the next year.
If successful, Lozano says, the thrusters could steer a spacecraft in space for months at a time at a fraction of a conventional mission’s budget.
“The price tag of exploration missions is too high,” Lozano says. “But imagine what would happen if you had these very small platforms. Instead of launching one, you could launch 20 for the same price. And you could do as exciting science as you could with the big ones, like go to Europa [a moon of Jupiter]. Why not? The sky is the limit.”
SoCo KungFu
11-09-2013, 10:44 AM
All Sizzle and No Steak: Why Allan Savory’s TED talk about how cattle can reverse global warming is dead wrong.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/04/allan_savory_s_ted_talk_is_wrong_and_the_benefits_ of_holistic_grazing_have.single.html
Savory seemed unconcerned with the failure of his method in scientific trials: “You’ll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries.”
Nice...
lol, I like the "will not scale" comment. I say and hear that a lot lately.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/you-cant-get-entangled-without-a-wormhole-1205.html
You can’t get entangled without a wormhole
MIT physicist finds the creation of entanglement simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole.
Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
December 5, 2013
Quantum entanglement is one of the more bizarre theories to come out of the study of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.”
Essentially, entanglement involves two particles, each occupying multiple states at once — a condition referred to as superposition. For example, both particles may simultaneously spin clockwise and counterclockwise. But neither has a definite state until one is measured, causing the other particle to instantly assume a corresponding state. The resulting correlations between the particles are preserved, even if they reside on opposite ends of the universe.
But what enables particles to communicate instantaneously — and seemingly faster than the speed of light — over such vast distances? Earlier this year, physicists proposed an answer in the form of “wormholes,” or gravitational tunnels. The group showed that by creating two entangled black holes, then pulling them apart, they formed a wormhole — essentially a “shortcut” through the universe — connecting the distant black holes.
Now an MIT physicist has found that, looked at through the lens of string theory, the creation of two entangled quarks — the building blocks of matter — simultaneously gives rise to a wormhole connecting the pair.
The theoretical results bolster the relatively new and exciting idea that the laws of gravity holding together the universe may not be fundamental, but arise from something else: quantum entanglement.
Julian Sonner, a senior postdoc in MIT’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science and Center for Theoretical Physics, has published his results in the journal Physical Review Letters, where it appears together with a related paper by Kristan Jensen of the University of Victoria and Andreas Karch of the University of Washington.
7935
A diagram of a wormhole, a hypothetical "shortcut" through the universe, where its two ends are each in separate points in spacetime.
The tangled web that is gravity
Ever since quantum mechanics was first proposed more than a century ago, the main challenge for physicists in the field has been to explain gravity in quantum-mechanical terms. While quantum mechanics works extremely well in describing interactions at a microscopic level, it fails to explain gravity — a fundamental concept of relativity, a theory proposed by Einstein to describe the macroscopic world. Thus, there appears to be a major barrier to reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity; for years, physicists have tried to come up with a theory of quantum gravity to marry the two fields.
“There are some hard questions of quantum gravity we still don’t understand, and we’ve been banging our heads against these problems for a long time,” Sonner says. “We need to find the right inroads to understanding these questions.”
A theory of quantum gravity would suggest that classical gravity is not a fundamental concept, as Einstein first proposed, but rather emerges from a more basic, quantum-based phenomenon. In a macroscopic context, this would mean that the universe is shaped by something more fundamental than the forces of gravity.
This is where quantum entanglement could play a role. It might appear that the concept of entanglement — one of the most fundamental in quantum mechanics — is in direct conflict with general relativity: Two entangled particles, “communicating” across vast distances, would have to do so at speeds faster than that of light — a violation of the laws of physics, according to Einstein. It may therefore come as a surprise that using the concept of entanglement in order to build up space-time may be a major step toward reconciling the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Tunneling to the fifth dimension
In July, physicists Juan Maldacena of the Institute for Advanced Study and Leonard Susskind of Stanford University proposed a theoretical solution in the form of two entangled black holes. When the black holes were entangled, then pulled apart, the theorists found that what emerged was a wormhole — a tunnel through space-time that is thought to be held together by gravity. The idea seemed to suggest that, in the case of wormholes, gravity emerges from the more fundamental phenomenon of entangled black holes.
Following up on work by Jensen and Karch, Sonner has sought to tackle this idea at the level of quarks — subatomic building blocks of matter. To see what emerges from two entangled quarks, he first generated quarks using the Schwinger effect — a concept in quantum theory that enables one to create particles out of nothing. More precisely, the effect, also called “pair creation,” allows two particles to emerge from a vacuum, or soup of transient particles. Under an electric field, one can, as Sonner puts it, “catch a pair of particles” before they disappear back into the vacuum. Once extracted, these particles are considered entangled.
Sonner mapped the entangled quarks onto a four-dimensional space, considered a representation of space-time. In contrast, gravity is thought to exist in the next dimension as, according to Einstein’s laws, it acts to “bend” and shape space-time, thereby existing in the fifth dimension.
To see what geometry may emerge in the fifth dimension from entangled quarks in the fourth, Sonner employed holographic duality, a concept in string theory. While a hologram is a two-dimensional object, it contains all the information necessary to represent a three-dimensional view. Essentially, holographic duality is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension.
Using holographic duality, Sonner derived the entangled quarks, and found that what emerged was a wormhole connecting the two, implying that the creation of quarks simultaneously creates a wormhole. More fundamentally, the results suggest that gravity may, in fact, emerge from entanglement. What’s more, the geometry, or bending, of the universe as described by classical gravity, may be a consequence of entanglement, such as that between pairs of particles strung together by tunneling wormholes.
“It’s the most basic representation yet that we have where entanglement gives rise to some sort of geometry,” Sonner says. “What happens if some of this entanglement is lost, and what happens to the geometry? There are many roads that can be pursued, and in that sense, this work can turn out to be very helpful.”
Anyone see this:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/23/study-major-funders-of-climate-change-denial-identified/
Anybody familiar with this study? Insights?
PalmStriker
12-25-2013, 11:38 AM
Great Thread. Good for this to be published on the net. The controlling interests have always spent big,etc. to maintain control over the commodities. If they admit to a need for energy/man-made solutions to real problems it might disturb their market share. New arrangements will mean "winners and losers". :)
SoCo KungFu
12-25-2013, 09:11 PM
Anyone see this:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/23/study-major-funders-of-climate-change-denial-identified/
Anybody familiar with this study? Insights?
I've sort of only skimmed through and haven't validated the source yet. But on the surface, none of this is surprising really. But there is an even broader implication here. This gets to the fundamental fight going on in US economics. This is the whole deal about taxing the rich vs allowing for donation to fix all our problems, etc. This is a fundamental example of how the right wing, "Let me donate if I want to" mentality is an utter failure at getting any positive result. They are evading taxes by donation loop holes, but look who they are donating to and what that money is funding. Its certainly not feeding the needy in all these soup kitchens I keep hearing about.
It's basically legalized bribery.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html
7990
SoCo KungFu
12-30-2013, 10:20 AM
Yeah, I've seen that graph before. At this point, the people that know this, know this. The people that don't, have become so crystallized they will never be convinced. Especially now that they believe everyone doing any amount of research, is part of a giant liberal conspiracy. Evidence means nothing in their minds any longer (if it ever did).
Yeah, but some people need the picture.
8003
sanjuro_ronin
01-03-2014, 06:07 AM
Anyone see this:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/12/23/study-major-funders-of-climate-change-denial-identified/
Anybody familiar with this study? Insights?
The problem with climate change ( or is it global warming?) is that the models that were so tauted in the past are being shown to be incorrect or at the very least not up to "par".
Then issues like this most certainly don't help:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60180
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year. The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them. Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.—Mia De Graaf and Hayley O’Keeffe, Daily Mail, 31 December 2013
A rescue mission for a ship stuck in ice in Antarctica is under threat as reports have emerged that one of the assisting vessels may itself be stuck. Fifty-two passengers and four crew members were due to be evacuated by helicopter from China’s Xue Long ship as soon as conditions allowed. However, the Xue Long has barely moved in a day and may be stuck in the ice. If the Chinese vessel is also stuck and the Australian vessel cannot help it reach clear water, there will be no airlift.—BBC News, 31 December 2013
Whenever the ice at the North and South Pole is mentioned, it is mostly in the context of melting ice triggered by global warming. However, the sea ice in Antarctica – in contrast to that in the Arctic – has proved to be remarkably robust. New measurements have now confirmed that. As the U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.—Spiegel Online, 21 October 2013...
sanjuro_ronin
01-03-2014, 06:09 AM
I found this article very interesting since I have a few friends in the scientific community here and oversees that have mentioned things along these lines for the last few years:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/
An excerpt:
The huge cultural authority science has acquired over the past century imposes large duties on every scientist. Scientists have acquired the power to impress and intimidate every time they open their mouths, and it is their responsibility to keep this power in mind no matter what they say or do. Too many have forgotten their obligation to approach with due respect the scholarly, artistic, religious, humanistic work that has always been mankind’s main spiritual support. Scientists are (on average) no more likely to understand this work than the man in the street is to understand quantum physics. But science used to know enough to approach cautiously and admire from outside, and to build its own work on a deep belief in human dignity. No longer.
Belittling Humanity.
Today science and the “philosophy of mind”—its thoughtful assistant, which is sometimes smarter than the boss—are threatening Western culture with the exact opposite of humanism. Call it roboticism. Man is the measure of all things, Protagoras said. Today we add, and computers are the measure of all men.
Many scientists are proud of having booted man off his throne at the center of the universe and reduced him to just one more creature—an especially annoying one—in the great intergalactic zoo. That is their right. But when scientists use this locker-room braggadocio to belittle the human viewpoint, to belittle human life and values and virtues and civilization and moral, spiritual, and religious discoveries, which is all we human beings possess or ever will, they have outrun their own empiricism. They are abusing their cultural standing. Science has become an international bully.
Nowhere is its bullying more outrageous than in its assault on the phenomenon known as subjectivity.
Your subjective, conscious experience is just as real as the tree outside your window or the photons striking your retina—even though you alone feel it. Many philosophers and scientists today tend to dismiss the subjective and focus wholly on an objective, third-person reality—a reality that would be just the same if men had no minds. They treat subjective reality as a footnote, or they ignore it, or they announce that, actually, it doesn’t even exist.
If scientists were rat-catchers, it wouldn’t matter. But right now, their views are threatening all sorts of intellectual and spiritual fields. The present problem originated at the intersection of artificial intelligence and philosophy of mind—in the question of what consciousness and mental states are all about, how they work, and what it would mean for a robot to have them. It has roots that stretch back to the behaviorism of the early 20th century, but the advent of computing lit the fuse of an intellectual crisis that blasted off in the 1960s and has been gaining altitude ever since.
Bullying Nagel.
The modern “mind fields” encompass artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and philosophy of mind. Researchers in these fields are profoundly split, and the chaos was on display in the ugliness occasioned by the publication of Thomas Nagel’s Mind & Cosmos in 2012. Nagel is an eminent philosopher and professor at NYU. In Mind & Cosmos, he shows with terse, meticulous thoroughness why mainstream thought on the workings of the mind is intellectually bankrupt. He explains why Darwinian evolution is insufficient to explain the emergence of consciousness—the capacity to feel or experience the world. He then offers his own ideas on consciousness, which are speculative, incomplete, tentative, and provocative—in the tradition of science and philosophy.
Nagel was immediately set on and (symbolically) beaten to death by all the leading punks, bullies, and hangers-on of the philosophical underworld. Attacking Darwin is the sin against the Holy Ghost that pious scientists are taught never to forgive. Even worse, Nagel is an atheist unwilling to express sufficient hatred of religion to satisfy other atheists. There is nothing religious about Nagel’s speculations; he believes that science has not come far enough to explain consciousness and that it must press on. He believes that Darwin is not sufficient.
The intelligentsia was so furious that it formed a lynch mob. In May 2013, the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece called “Where Thomas Nagel Went Wrong.” One paragraph was notable:
Whatever the validity of [Nagel’s] stance, its timing was certainly bad. The war between New Atheists and believers has become savage, with Richard Dawkins writing sentences like, “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sadomasochistic, and repellent. We should also dismiss it as barking mad….” In that climate, saying anything nice at all about religion is a tactical error.
It’s the cowardice of the Chronicle’s statement that is alarming—as if the only conceivable response to a mass attack by killer hyenas were to run away. Nagel was assailed; almost everyone else ran.
SoCo KungFu
01-04-2014, 07:57 AM
The problem with climate change ( or is it global warming?) is that the models that were so tauted in the past are being shown to be incorrect or at the very least not up to "par".
I prefer anthropogenic global change, personally. Its not just climate that is changing, more importantly to humans, the entire biosphere is changing as a result.
If by not up to par, you mean that its been worse than the models conservative measure, then yeah...ok...
Then issues like this most certainly don't help:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60180
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year. The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them. Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.—Mia De Graaf and Hayley O’Keeffe, Daily Mail, 31 December 2013
A rescue mission for a ship stuck in ice in Antarctica is under threat as reports have emerged that one of the assisting vessels may itself be stuck. Fifty-two passengers and four crew members were due to be evacuated by helicopter from China’s Xue Long ship as soon as conditions allowed. However, the Xue Long has barely moved in a day and may be stuck in the ice. If the Chinese vessel is also stuck and the Australian vessel cannot help it reach clear water, there will be no airlift.—BBC News, 31 December 2013
Whenever the ice at the North and South Pole is mentioned, it is mostly in the context of melting ice triggered by global warming. However, the sea ice in Antarctica – in contrast to that in the Arctic – has proved to be remarkably robust. New measurements have now confirmed that. As the U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.—Spiegel Online, 21 October 2013...
The ship is stuck on the western edge of Antarctica, yes? We've known for quite a while that there are seasonal differences in ice retention from east and west. This isn't news, except to the "news" people. This isn't a case of the science being wrong. This is a case of science "journalism" being wrong. And for the record, Arctic ice was higher this year too. 1 year of increased retention doesn't negate a 30 year trend in loss.
Simple experiment. Go open your freezer. Leave it open. What happens? Your kitchen got colder, but the ice melted. Energy has to go somewhere. Its the where that is important, combined with the fact that the earth is an open system with constant solar input.
SoCo KungFu
01-04-2014, 08:40 AM
I found this article very interesting since I have a few friends in the scientific community here and oversees that have mentioned things along these lines for the last few years:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-closing-of-the-scientific-mind/
An excerpt:
I find it pretty dim myself. Nagel wasn't bullied. He was called out because he used his position and the authority it carried to profit from a work which was, as your own article puts it, "speculative, incomplete, tentative, and provocative." He was called out for proclaiming that ID was a scientifically acceptable stance and that it should be respected as such, the key words being scientifically acceptable. It is not. It is the exact opposite of a scientific stance. It is a gross misrepresentation of data. In the eyes of science, it is one of the greatest crimes against the discipline one can make. That is why he was called out. He wasn't bullied.
Do you really think Dawkins speaks for science (since that's who the article mentions as the counter point)? Dawkins is equally disrespected by the scientific community at large. His presence is simply tolerated, but he hasn't produced legitimate science in 30 years. He's a writer, not much more. In fact, he was taken to task by E.O. Wilson not long ago.
The problem isn't the scientists. The problem is a general population that is now, because of access to information, becoming more aware of the scientific mechanisms, and trying to interject in that process without the requisite capabilities. I find it laughable that anyone can claim that science is lacking in the human element, with the likes of the Neil Tyson's of the world. Are you aware that science blogging is one of the largest outlets of science writing these days? Perhaps if the general population spent more time reading things like http://www.scilogs.com/endless_forms/ (plug for a personal friend no less :D ) instead of watching some ******* with his duck kazoos, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Tell me she doesn't write with a sense of "humanistic wonder." For most of us, it is our personal, subjective experiences in finding wonder in something about our universe, that drives us to follow through with a scientific pursuit. We just know how to temper that with objectivity, better than the average person.
The most comical part of all this, there are a number of well respected, religious scientists. The most intelligent geneticist I personally know, is a southern Baptist. Who himself has been harassed by his own church, his children bullied by other children and ostracized by teachers, simply because of his stance on evolution, and that he wrote a book attempting to bridge the gap for his fellow churchgoers to his field and the subject. Religion and spirituality can get respect when they show it first, they can start with their own people. This fight (if there is one) wasn't started by science. It was started the moment the spiritual pillars decided it was appropriate to jail or execute those unraveling the universe. If spiritualism is threatened in the modern climate, then its up to you to review your convictions, not our job to sugar coat it for you. We have more important things to deal with, like hunger, disease, resource depletion, that previously mentioned anthropogenic global change....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.