After what seemed to be a too-short holiday vacation, I'm back in the laboratory making science happen. And of course that means that I'm also back in the office trying to find cool stuff to post on this blog. When I was looking around on Sciencenews.org this morning, the featured story, which I would definitely consider 'cool stuff,' was about the possibility of dark matter being detected from a mine in Minnesota. However, when I returned to the website this afternoon, the feature had changed to the recently released videos from the Cassini probe that is currently studying Saturn. Images sent back to Earth by the probe have been converted into short movies showing some of the notable events of Saturn's moons under the backdrop of Saturn and its rings by the Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations (CICLOPS). The videos are pretty amazing.
Now, back to the original story that I found. Dark matter has been the focus of much research recently, with the main goal being to physically detect it (or at least its presence). A group of researchers, many of whom hailed from Fermilab, built a detector that would identify the presence of a particular type of dark matter called weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). It was thought that the WIMPs would occasionally pass through the detector, vibrationally exciting the Germanium nuclei within, creating an observable signal transduction event. Analysis of such events have resulted in the tentative conclusion that WIMPs are responsible for the signals, although there is a 23% chance that the signals were instead from background radiation within the mine.
Although their conclusions are somewhat premature, we should probably give this research group some slack considering the signal transduction events are extremely rare (it is thought that, at most, a WIMP would contact the detector once or twice a year). Also, it's exciting to see big news like this coming out of Fermilab. They have, after all, been upstaged by CERN's particle accelerator, the LHC. You'll remember that in a previous post, I mentioned that the LHC had reached a power of 1.18 trillion electronvolts, making it the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world. That title was stripped from Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator, which had held the record of being the largest and most powerful accelerator since it became operational in 1983. The machine has also led to major discoveries of elementary particles during its lifetime that have come to be staples of subatomic physics research and education. Despite its rich history, however, the Tevatron must soon go the way of Old Yeller. Because even though second place is a podium finish, in the world of particle accelerators it just means that you're obsolete. So Fermilab is in the process of shutting down their landmark accelerator.
And with New Year's eve right around the corner, it may be appropriate to raise our glasses to the Tevatron, for its many years of proud service.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
They're Just Really Big Cameras, Really
The big news yesterday concerned the launch of the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It was such big news that it was one of the featured stories on Yahoo!'s homepage. Also, CBS News has a pretty great story on the whole affair, which you can find here.
In essence, the thing is going to circle the planet over our heads for a few months, constantly snapping pictures, until it has photographed the entire night sky. The really cool thing about this, though, is that it will be doing so pretty far out into the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than in the visible wavelength range. Why is this cool? Well, we can see lots of neat heavenly bodies with telescopes here on Earth and with those outside the atmosphere, like the Hubble, but we're only seeing objects that emit a lot of light, mostly in the UV, visible, and near-infrared range. The WISE craft will be taking images in the wavelenth range of 3.4 - 22 micron, and with unprecedented clarity. What this means is that the craft will be able to image things that don't necessarily emit visible light, but instead emit heat. So it is expected that many undiscovered objects will be found, such as asteroids, failed stars, and planets, just to name a few. And it's going to do this for the entire night sky, as observed from Earth.
And speaking of infrared imaging of space, things seem to be coming along nicely with NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The Webb Telescope is the observatory that is slated to take the place of the Hubble Space Telescope in 2014. It will take over the tasks of the Hubble, but with infrared-optimized equipment. Like the Hubble, it will take pretty pictures of distant extraterrestrial objects, but it will also be capable of analyzing those objects much more thoroughly. In fact, using spectral analysis techniques - sort of like the now-common mass spectroscopy techniques used to determine the chemical make-up of all sorts of things in laboratories all over the world - to examine far-off planets, it is hoped that the Webb scope will be able to find places that could potentially harbor life.
NASA has posted all kinds of interesting facts and information about the upcoming space telescope on their website. However, I would recommend keeping an eye on their YouTube page, which as of right now, has a couple of really great videos. I would imagine, though, that as pieces are developed and assembled and as the telescope begins to take shape, we'll be seeing more videos uploaded. I won't exactly be waiting with bated breat, since I'm going to miss the Hubble (I mean, I kind of feel like we grew up together). But what can I say? The videos are pretty cool.
In essence, the thing is going to circle the planet over our heads for a few months, constantly snapping pictures, until it has photographed the entire night sky. The really cool thing about this, though, is that it will be doing so pretty far out into the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than in the visible wavelength range. Why is this cool? Well, we can see lots of neat heavenly bodies with telescopes here on Earth and with those outside the atmosphere, like the Hubble, but we're only seeing objects that emit a lot of light, mostly in the UV, visible, and near-infrared range. The WISE craft will be taking images in the wavelenth range of 3.4 - 22 micron, and with unprecedented clarity. What this means is that the craft will be able to image things that don't necessarily emit visible light, but instead emit heat. So it is expected that many undiscovered objects will be found, such as asteroids, failed stars, and planets, just to name a few. And it's going to do this for the entire night sky, as observed from Earth.
And speaking of infrared imaging of space, things seem to be coming along nicely with NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). The Webb Telescope is the observatory that is slated to take the place of the Hubble Space Telescope in 2014. It will take over the tasks of the Hubble, but with infrared-optimized equipment. Like the Hubble, it will take pretty pictures of distant extraterrestrial objects, but it will also be capable of analyzing those objects much more thoroughly. In fact, using spectral analysis techniques - sort of like the now-common mass spectroscopy techniques used to determine the chemical make-up of all sorts of things in laboratories all over the world - to examine far-off planets, it is hoped that the Webb scope will be able to find places that could potentially harbor life.
NASA has posted all kinds of interesting facts and information about the upcoming space telescope on their website. However, I would recommend keeping an eye on their YouTube page, which as of right now, has a couple of really great videos. I would imagine, though, that as pieces are developed and assembled and as the telescope begins to take shape, we'll be seeing more videos uploaded. I won't exactly be waiting with bated breat, since I'm going to miss the Hubble (I mean, I kind of feel like we grew up together). But what can I say? The videos are pretty cool.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Climate Change and Cancer Imaging: A Big Week In The World of Science
I know that all eyes are on the Copenhagen Climate Summit, which is indeed a big deal, but that doesn't stop all of those lab coat-clad researchers and scientists from pressing on. Still, if you'd like to stay up-to-date with the latest goings on from the Cop15, you can do so at the Cop15 official website. There you'll find news updates, as well as some great blogs dedicated to keeping up with the events of this monumental summit. I personally will be keeping my ear to the ground as the meeting proceeds, and although my hopes are high for swift and firm action on curbing our negative impact on the environment and I know that I'm bound to be disappointed, I'm just excited to see the meeting draw such attention from the media. After all, the more time the Cop15 gets in the news, the more John D. down the street, who could care less about climate change, is exposed to it. And this generally translates to a populace that is more knowledgeable, and hopefully, more mindful of our effects on the planet. It's a winning proposition.
Having said that, I couldn't resist posting this video that I found on the Science News website. The video is from a presentation by Erik Sahai, a researcher at the London Research Institute, that was given at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Diego. Although the details of their imaging method are still a bit unclear to me, this research group was able to conclude that signaling by the cytokine TGF-beta is responsible for single-cell metastasis in breast cancer using real-time fluorescence imaging analysis. For clarity, the abstract from the ASCB meeting has been quoted below:
Having said that, I couldn't resist posting this video that I found on the Science News website. The video is from a presentation by Erik Sahai, a researcher at the London Research Institute, that was given at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Diego. Although the details of their imaging method are still a bit unclear to me, this research group was able to conclude that signaling by the cytokine TGF-beta is responsible for single-cell metastasis in breast cancer using real-time fluorescence imaging analysis. For clarity, the abstract from the ASCB meeting has been quoted below:
If, like me, you didn't totally understand every single little tiny syllable of the abstract, have no fear. Without knowing all of the background of the project, the video is still pretty cool. And the caption explains a lot. And so, without further ado, I give you a rare look at the process of cancer metastasis:
Imaging the metastatic process
E. Sahai1; S. Giampieri1
1. Tumour Cell Biology Laboratory, Cancer Research UK London Research Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Cancer cells can invade surrounding tissue either as single cells or in collective units. We use intravital imaging to demonstrate a reversible transition to a motile state as breast cancer cells spread. Imaging primary tumours reveals heterogeneity in cell morphology and motility. Two distinct modes of motility are observed: collective and single-celled. By monitoring the localisation of Smad2 and the activity of a TGFβ-dependent reporter gene during breast cancer cell dissemination we demonstrate that TGFβ signalling is transiently and locally activated in motile single cells. TGFβ1 switches cells from cohesive to single cell motility through a transcriptional programme involving Smad4, EGFR, Nedd9, and numerous regulators of actomyosin contraction: M-RIP, FARP and RhoC. In contrast, different regulators of the actomyosin cytoskeleton are used during collective invasion. Blockade of TGFβ signalling prevents cells moving singly in vivo but does not inhibit cells moving collectively. Cells restricted to collective invasion are capable of lymphatic invasion but not blood-borne metastasis. Constitutive TGFβ signalling promotes single cell motility and intravasation but reduces subsequent growth in the lungs. Thus, transient TGFβ signalling is optimal for blood-borne metastasis.
How cancer cells move and spread from Science News on Vimeo.
Breast cancer cells (shown in green) individually peel off from the main tumor when they get a "go" signal from a type of growth factor called TGF-beta. Cells can also move in clumps, but that migration is not controlled by TGF-beta, shows a new study presented at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting. Immune cells called macrophages are shown in red and connective tissue appears in cyan and magenta.
Credit: Erik Sahai - Cancer Research UK
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Let's Smash Some Stuff! Update Style!
While I'm on this breaking news kick, I thought I would provide an exciting update on the news from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). As of yesterday, the world's largest man-made particle accelerator revved up its opposing proton beams to 1.18 trillion electronvolts. This makes it not only the largest, but also the most high-energy accelerator ever constructed.
I don't think I need to, but I'm going to say it again: how freakin' cool is that?!
I don't think I need to, but I'm going to say it again: how freakin' cool is that?!
Fight the Power
I loved this story in NatureNews. With heavy debts and a struggling economy, the Japanese government is looking for ways of cutting some corners to save a few pennies. And, go figure, they're looking at cutting substantially into their science and tech funding. This includes cutting deep into some of the country's leading and most important projects, such as a major collaborative supercomputer project.
In response, leading scientists, researchers, and students hastily arranged a meeting at the University of Tokyo to discuss the cuts and the detriment that it would cause. But this phenomenon isn't limited to Japan. It often amazes me how short-sighted politicians and their brethren can be; no matter what country they hail from. Every time the going gets tough, when the economy falters, one of the first things that gets the axe is scientific research funding. What they don't realize is that this funding is what drives future economic prosperity, since it not only leads to future production when the research comes to fruition, but also funds the students that make up the next generation of great minds. Frustrating, just frustrating.
The Tokyo meeting, despite being arranged the night before the meeting was held, ended up drawing a huge crowd. It's reported that the outpouring of protest was staggering, and it's hoped that the attendees, who came from across the country to join the protests, will be able to sway the government from making the cuts that have been recommended.
I personally hope that the protests make a difference, but what this article really got me thinking about is what would happen if our federal government made such proposals. Would the members of the scientific community mobilize? Would national meetings, so heavily attended that they would be standing-room only, take place? Would American Nobel laureates call to arms their fellow researchers? Would students hold protests across the nation?
It's something to think about, to be sure. But we academic types are the minority. So perhaps the more important, though scarier, question is this: would anybody else care?
Or even notice?
In response, leading scientists, researchers, and students hastily arranged a meeting at the University of Tokyo to discuss the cuts and the detriment that it would cause. But this phenomenon isn't limited to Japan. It often amazes me how short-sighted politicians and their brethren can be; no matter what country they hail from. Every time the going gets tough, when the economy falters, one of the first things that gets the axe is scientific research funding. What they don't realize is that this funding is what drives future economic prosperity, since it not only leads to future production when the research comes to fruition, but also funds the students that make up the next generation of great minds. Frustrating, just frustrating.
The Tokyo meeting, despite being arranged the night before the meeting was held, ended up drawing a huge crowd. It's reported that the outpouring of protest was staggering, and it's hoped that the attendees, who came from across the country to join the protests, will be able to sway the government from making the cuts that have been recommended.
I personally hope that the protests make a difference, but what this article really got me thinking about is what would happen if our federal government made such proposals. Would the members of the scientific community mobilize? Would national meetings, so heavily attended that they would be standing-room only, take place? Would American Nobel laureates call to arms their fellow researchers? Would students hold protests across the nation?
It's something to think about, to be sure. But we academic types are the minority. So perhaps the more important, though scarier, question is this: would anybody else care?
Or even notice?
Monday, November 23, 2009
Let's Smash Some Stuff!
How about this? I'm totally posting breaking news...
A few hours ago, the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) began circulating protons in both directions through the magnetically controlled 17-mile ring, according to an article in the Times. Some may remember that the machine failed last year during power testing due to a faulty electrical connection. As of Friday, however, the collider was once again powered on and began circulating protons through its big, circular tube. This morning, another milestone was reached as the collider began circulating a second beam of protons. In fact, as I am writing this, low-energy proton collisions are taking place underneath the ground along the border of France and Switzerland, where the LHC is located, in the largest 'atom smasher' ever constructed. How freakin' cool is that?
As safety tests are conducted while the proton beams are ciculating, engineers will be ensuring that the system is ready for sustained high-power function. Once safety tests are complete, the power will be increased incrementally along with the number of circulating protons, and although safety tests will continue, true physics experiments will begin as high-energy collisions begin taking place. When the energy is increased to 1.2 tetraelectronvolts, which is expected to be fairly soon if things go well, the proton collisions will be at a speed and energy never before observed in a collider before. The massive magnets that control the motion of the beams essentially aim the beams at one another so that circulating protons smash into protons circulating in the opposite direction in locations where detectors are able to monitor the conditions that occur. The results of these studies, theoretically, will shed light on the makeup of the universe and how the universe was formed. It is also believed that never-bofore-seen elementary particles, such as the elusive Higgs boson, will be observed.
Most of the information gathered from these experiments is supposed to be pretty in-depth as far as quantum physics is concerned, so the standard layperson walking down the street will be unaffected by any of the things going on at the LHC. However, for those of us interested in physics and, you know, the universe, there's about to be some pretty wild stuff going down. It may take a lot of time for the data gathered during the experiments to be analyzed thoroughly enough for true conclusions to be drawn, but in the meantime, we can sleep easy at night knowing that in a strange land (the Franco-Swiss border), pale little men in lab coats (physicists and engineers) are tirelessly toiling at unlocking the secrets of the cosmos.
A few hours ago, the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) began circulating protons in both directions through the magnetically controlled 17-mile ring, according to an article in the Times. Some may remember that the machine failed last year during power testing due to a faulty electrical connection. As of Friday, however, the collider was once again powered on and began circulating protons through its big, circular tube. This morning, another milestone was reached as the collider began circulating a second beam of protons. In fact, as I am writing this, low-energy proton collisions are taking place underneath the ground along the border of France and Switzerland, where the LHC is located, in the largest 'atom smasher' ever constructed. How freakin' cool is that?
As safety tests are conducted while the proton beams are ciculating, engineers will be ensuring that the system is ready for sustained high-power function. Once safety tests are complete, the power will be increased incrementally along with the number of circulating protons, and although safety tests will continue, true physics experiments will begin as high-energy collisions begin taking place. When the energy is increased to 1.2 tetraelectronvolts, which is expected to be fairly soon if things go well, the proton collisions will be at a speed and energy never before observed in a collider before. The massive magnets that control the motion of the beams essentially aim the beams at one another so that circulating protons smash into protons circulating in the opposite direction in locations where detectors are able to monitor the conditions that occur. The results of these studies, theoretically, will shed light on the makeup of the universe and how the universe was formed. It is also believed that never-bofore-seen elementary particles, such as the elusive Higgs boson, will be observed.
Most of the information gathered from these experiments is supposed to be pretty in-depth as far as quantum physics is concerned, so the standard layperson walking down the street will be unaffected by any of the things going on at the LHC. However, for those of us interested in physics and, you know, the universe, there's about to be some pretty wild stuff going down. It may take a lot of time for the data gathered during the experiments to be analyzed thoroughly enough for true conclusions to be drawn, but in the meantime, we can sleep easy at night knowing that in a strange land (the Franco-Swiss border), pale little men in lab coats (physicists and engineers) are tirelessly toiling at unlocking the secrets of the cosmos.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Is It Friday Yet?
We all know that there are many reasons to love Fridays. Among my personal favorite reasons are the following: I normally analyze all of the data gathered throughout the week on Friday for my end-of-the-week research updates, which is an extremely satisfying activity; 9 times out of 10, I treat myself to lunch out on the town, and if the weather is nice, that involves a pleasant bicycle ride through downtown; my two favorite, non-science themed blogs, Bike Snob NYC and CoMo Cyco, post a hilarious quiz and a selection of witty replies to fake reader mail, respectively; the weekend is approaching and that equals fun times without the burden of work and/or school.
But there's another reason to spend all week anticipating the arrival of Friday, and that is the broadcast of National Public Radio's Science Friday. Science Friday is a once weekly segment of their popular Talk of the Nation program that focuses on science-related topics. Following the standard Talk of the Nation format, SciFri (as those of us in-the-know refer to it) hosts guests whose expertise relates to the particular topics of the week. After a period of discussion or debate, the guest or guests will sometimes field questions from callers, Facebookers, emailers, Twitterers, etc. The show is split into two hour-long segments, normally examining 2-3 topics per segment.
While Talk of the Nation is hosted by Neal Conan, Science Friday is hosted by Ira Flatow, who specializes in science journalism. Now don't get me wrong, Ira is a great host and facilitates intriquing and thought-provoking discussions, but if I could have any job, any job at all, it would be his. Not because I think I would be better at it, because I wouldn't. But because I think he might have the coolest job in the world. After all, each week he interviews some of the greatest minds in the world. And that, indeed, is a pretty great gig.
My intention this week was to discuss what is obviously the biggest news in science right now, and that is the discovery of water on the Moon. If you haven't heard about this, which is indicative of one who has been stranded on a desert island with no human contact for the past week, NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) successfully completed its mission. LCROSS and its upper stage, Centaur, were sent on a suicide mission to the Moon, in which the upper stage separated from the satellite and went hurtling into the Moon's surface, creating a large debris plume. The satellite then travelled through the debris plume with analytical equipment that observed and analyzed the debris plume, then also impacted the surface. Both debris plumes were carefully observed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as observatories here on Earth. The data is currently being analyzed, but the investigators have already announced that a small amount of the debris plume consisted of water.
Although this was going to be my sole topic this week, I listened to SciFri's report of the mission over the weekend, with special guest Anthony Colaprete, the principal investigator of the LCORR project at NASA's Ames facility. What I found was that this interview was far more informative than anything I could have churned out here on this blog, and so rather than going into all of the details (of which there aren't many at this point, since the real leg-work of this mission is ongoing), I thought it would be best to let you listen to the podcast for yourself, which can be found here.
If you enjoy this interview, I recommend that you become a regular listener. There are brief descriptions of each of the week's topics, allowing you to select which you would like to hear if you don't want to listen to the entire show. In addition, the topics really do span the scientific spectrum, from psychology to space travel to renewable energy, so it's rare to find a show that doesn't include something that strikes one's fancy.
But there's another reason to spend all week anticipating the arrival of Friday, and that is the broadcast of National Public Radio's Science Friday. Science Friday is a once weekly segment of their popular Talk of the Nation program that focuses on science-related topics. Following the standard Talk of the Nation format, SciFri (as those of us in-the-know refer to it) hosts guests whose expertise relates to the particular topics of the week. After a period of discussion or debate, the guest or guests will sometimes field questions from callers, Facebookers, emailers, Twitterers, etc. The show is split into two hour-long segments, normally examining 2-3 topics per segment.
While Talk of the Nation is hosted by Neal Conan, Science Friday is hosted by Ira Flatow, who specializes in science journalism. Now don't get me wrong, Ira is a great host and facilitates intriquing and thought-provoking discussions, but if I could have any job, any job at all, it would be his. Not because I think I would be better at it, because I wouldn't. But because I think he might have the coolest job in the world. After all, each week he interviews some of the greatest minds in the world. And that, indeed, is a pretty great gig.
My intention this week was to discuss what is obviously the biggest news in science right now, and that is the discovery of water on the Moon. If you haven't heard about this, which is indicative of one who has been stranded on a desert island with no human contact for the past week, NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) successfully completed its mission. LCROSS and its upper stage, Centaur, were sent on a suicide mission to the Moon, in which the upper stage separated from the satellite and went hurtling into the Moon's surface, creating a large debris plume. The satellite then travelled through the debris plume with analytical equipment that observed and analyzed the debris plume, then also impacted the surface. Both debris plumes were carefully observed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as observatories here on Earth. The data is currently being analyzed, but the investigators have already announced that a small amount of the debris plume consisted of water.
Although this was going to be my sole topic this week, I listened to SciFri's report of the mission over the weekend, with special guest Anthony Colaprete, the principal investigator of the LCORR project at NASA's Ames facility. What I found was that this interview was far more informative than anything I could have churned out here on this blog, and so rather than going into all of the details (of which there aren't many at this point, since the real leg-work of this mission is ongoing), I thought it would be best to let you listen to the podcast for yourself, which can be found here.
If you enjoy this interview, I recommend that you become a regular listener. There are brief descriptions of each of the week's topics, allowing you to select which you would like to hear if you don't want to listen to the entire show. In addition, the topics really do span the scientific spectrum, from psychology to space travel to renewable energy, so it's rare to find a show that doesn't include something that strikes one's fancy.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Watching the Sky Fall
It's that time of year again, folks. The Leonid meteor shower is set to peak on the (early) morning of November 17. According to a Space.com article on the shower, the most intense viewing will be in Asia. However, it is predicted that we here in the U.S. may get a decent show as well. For those of us here in the Midwest, it may not be as spectacular as what may be seen on the East coast. But I'm optimistic that crawling out of bed on a chilly Autumn night at 4 or 5 in the morning will not be totally fruitless. Although there have been a few years that the Leonids have disappointed, more often than not, they create pretty amazing displays.
The Leonids are pretty cool creatures. The particles that create the shower are dust debris from the comet Tempel-Tuttle, which are ejected as the comet is warmed by the Sun, creating a debris trail. Each year, the Earth passes through the trail and, depending on the density of the dust particles, they come zipping into our atmosphere. As they enter the atmosphere at a fairly high rate of speed, 45 miles per second, they ionize molecules in the atmosphere. The ionized molecules then relax to a resting state, but give off photons when they do so. This is what creates the bright, streaking meteoroid trail as they move across the sky. Also, because the dust particles are all moving in more-or-less the same direction in space and therefore enter the atmosphere in the same direction, they look as though they originate from a particular point in the sky. This point is called the radiant point. In the case of the Leonids, that point is near or directly over the constellation Leo, hence the name of the shower.
In the past, the Leonids have created what are referred to as meteor storms, which are unusually spectacular displays. It is thought that the exuberant display that was observed in 1833 produced in upwards of 100,000 meteoroids per hour. Unfortunately, we will likely see a number more along the lines of 25-30 per hour. But it's always possible that we could see many more than that, particularly on November 17. This is due to the fact that we know very little about the stream of debris that the Earth will be moving through.
If you'd like to view the Leonid shower, the most important step is to find a good location. You'll want to be as far as possible from city lights. If you think you'll be able to leave the city lights behind, but not travel far, you should consider traveling East since Leo, the shower's radiant point, will be in the Eastern sky. This should do well to put the interfering lights behind you, and give you a nice dark theater for watching the Leonids. Once you've got a good location, settle in, stay warm, and enjoy the show.
Not sure where Leo is, but want to know exactly where the radiant point will be? No problem. You can go to the AstroViewer Interactive Night Sky Map, punch in your location (anywhere in the midwest will work - I used St. Louis as my location), adjust the date to Nov. 17 and the time to when you plan on being out stargazing, and note the location of Leo. Good luck!
The Leonids are pretty cool creatures. The particles that create the shower are dust debris from the comet Tempel-Tuttle, which are ejected as the comet is warmed by the Sun, creating a debris trail. Each year, the Earth passes through the trail and, depending on the density of the dust particles, they come zipping into our atmosphere. As they enter the atmosphere at a fairly high rate of speed, 45 miles per second, they ionize molecules in the atmosphere. The ionized molecules then relax to a resting state, but give off photons when they do so. This is what creates the bright, streaking meteoroid trail as they move across the sky. Also, because the dust particles are all moving in more-or-less the same direction in space and therefore enter the atmosphere in the same direction, they look as though they originate from a particular point in the sky. This point is called the radiant point. In the case of the Leonids, that point is near or directly over the constellation Leo, hence the name of the shower.
In the past, the Leonids have created what are referred to as meteor storms, which are unusually spectacular displays. It is thought that the exuberant display that was observed in 1833 produced in upwards of 100,000 meteoroids per hour. Unfortunately, we will likely see a number more along the lines of 25-30 per hour. But it's always possible that we could see many more than that, particularly on November 17. This is due to the fact that we know very little about the stream of debris that the Earth will be moving through.
If you'd like to view the Leonid shower, the most important step is to find a good location. You'll want to be as far as possible from city lights. If you think you'll be able to leave the city lights behind, but not travel far, you should consider traveling East since Leo, the shower's radiant point, will be in the Eastern sky. This should do well to put the interfering lights behind you, and give you a nice dark theater for watching the Leonids. Once you've got a good location, settle in, stay warm, and enjoy the show.
Not sure where Leo is, but want to know exactly where the radiant point will be? No problem. You can go to the AstroViewer Interactive Night Sky Map, punch in your location (anywhere in the midwest will work - I used St. Louis as my location), adjust the date to Nov. 17 and the time to when you plan on being out stargazing, and note the location of Leo. Good luck!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
It's Not Rocket Science. Oh Wait...
I've been itching to discuss this topic for quite some time, and stumbled upon an article in ScienceNews that has given me a good reason to take a crack at it. The article summed up the results of the Augustine committee quite well, and, I may add, quite succinctly. This succinctness is good, because no one in their right mind wants to read a report written by a panel of rocket scientists about rockets for other rocket scientists. Actually, that's not totally true. The panel, headed by a former chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin (whose name is Norman Augustine; hence the name of the committee), was charged with reviewing NASA's future plans for manned space flight after the retirement of the space shuttle. Currently, NASA is betting on use of a rocket called Ares 1 to send manned capsules into low Earth orbit and to resupply the International Space Station. After what appears to have been an extremely thorough study by the Augustine committee, the group concluded, essentially, that even though NASA could develop and deploy Ares 1, that it didn't necessarily mean that they should. One of the express concerns that will arise, whether NASA goes ahead with the Ares 1 or not, is what will send our astronauts up in between the time that the shuttle retires, which is next year, and when the next program will be ready for use (the Ares 1 isn't slated to be ready for manned missions until 2017). To address this, the Augustine committee noted that it might be more beneficial to contract International Space Station resupply missions and other low Earth orbit missions to industry, allowing NASA to focus on manned missions to the Moon and Mars. To this possibility, the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) replied, “we are not prepared to have our astronauts’ access to space held hostage to purchases of seats from nonexistent commercial providers,” adding that the Ares 1 program appears to be on track and perfectly capable.
Giffords' statement is not only false, but very confusing.
Why? Because this is where SpaceX comes into the picture. SpaceX is a space exploration technology company founded and run by a remarkable man by the name of Elon Musk, who is also co-founder of PayPal and owner and chair of Tesla Motors. SpaceX has not only already developed a launch vehicle called the Falcon 9, but a transportation spacecraft called Dragon is also being developed and nearing completion, which will be capable of carrying cargo and crew into orbit and to the International Space Station. In addition, NASA has already contracted a minimum of 12 flights with SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station after retirement of the shuttle, with flights beginning in 2011. So this means that either Giffords was ill-informed when she made the aforementioned comment or just lying, because our astronauts' access to space is already being held hostage by commercial providers. But at a great value to the taxpayers. The Augustine committee concluded that the Ares 1 would not be capable of performing the tasks set forth without an extra $30 billion ontop of the current funding provided. On the other hand, SpaceX charges a flat rate for use of their Falcon 9 and Dragon systems, and for the 12 flights that have already been scheduled over the next 5 years, the total cost comes to approximately $1.6 billion. That's big savings. And not only is a continued NASA contract with SpaceX viable because of monetary concerns, but also because the Falcon 9 is extremely safe and reliable.
Are there any real reasons not to allow our astronauts' access to space be held hostage by commercial providers? Maybe. But I can't think of any. By the way, Falcon 9's inaugural flight from Cape Canaveral is scheduled to take place in just a few short months. I'll let you know how it goes.
Giffords' statement is not only false, but very confusing.
Why? Because this is where SpaceX comes into the picture. SpaceX is a space exploration technology company founded and run by a remarkable man by the name of Elon Musk, who is also co-founder of PayPal and owner and chair of Tesla Motors. SpaceX has not only already developed a launch vehicle called the Falcon 9, but a transportation spacecraft called Dragon is also being developed and nearing completion, which will be capable of carrying cargo and crew into orbit and to the International Space Station. In addition, NASA has already contracted a minimum of 12 flights with SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station after retirement of the shuttle, with flights beginning in 2011. So this means that either Giffords was ill-informed when she made the aforementioned comment or just lying, because our astronauts' access to space is already being held hostage by commercial providers. But at a great value to the taxpayers. The Augustine committee concluded that the Ares 1 would not be capable of performing the tasks set forth without an extra $30 billion ontop of the current funding provided. On the other hand, SpaceX charges a flat rate for use of their Falcon 9 and Dragon systems, and for the 12 flights that have already been scheduled over the next 5 years, the total cost comes to approximately $1.6 billion. That's big savings. And not only is a continued NASA contract with SpaceX viable because of monetary concerns, but also because the Falcon 9 is extremely safe and reliable.
Are there any real reasons not to allow our astronauts' access to space be held hostage by commercial providers? Maybe. But I can't think of any. By the way, Falcon 9's inaugural flight from Cape Canaveral is scheduled to take place in just a few short months. I'll let you know how it goes.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Gene Therapy and the Greatest Living Guitarist
In last week's blog post, I discussed the use of gene therapy as a treatment, and possible cure, for Parkinson's disease. At the end of the post, I mention my wish of seeing Muhammad Ali, who I refer to in the post title as the 'greatest boxer of all time,' cured of Parkinson's tremors. Well, I couldn't help but follow up on that post when I saw a brief article in Popular Science about an 8-year-old boy whose eyesight is restored in an eye treated with gene therapy. According to the original article in The Lancet, patients of the study were treated with a vector that encoded a protein that controls the activity of the retinal pigment epithelium, restoring eyesight in six of the twelve patients in the study with congenital blindness. The results indicate that, by studying both children and adults, the greatest improvement in eyesight is achieved when patients are treated with gene therapy at a young age, as the children of the study fared better than the adults.
Despite being somewhat void of details, the Popular Science article did have something that the original Lancet article did not: a video of the 8-year-old boy navigating a maze first using only his control eye, which did not undergo gene therapy injections, and then using his treated eye, which did. The difference is quite obvious. In fact, the first video of the boy trying to navigate the maze using his control eye was somewhat difficult to watch, as he had to be assisted at every turn. He even struggled to find the door knob on the door at the end of the maze. On the other hand, the video of his attempt using the treated eye is much easier to watch. Let's just say, if it had been a test, he would've aced it.
Very cool study and very promising results.
"But what's with the weird title" you ask? As I stated earlier, last week's blog post title makes reference to Muhammad Ali as the 'greatest boxer of all time,' and since I'm following up on that post, I thought I'd continue the theme. For those of you not in the know, the 'greatest living guitarist' refers to Jose Feliciano, who was born permanently blind. At 64 years of age, it's unlikely that Feliciano's vision will ever be restored with gene therapy, but it's appealing to think of a future in which congenital blindness has become a thing of the past.
Despite being somewhat void of details, the Popular Science article did have something that the original Lancet article did not: a video of the 8-year-old boy navigating a maze first using only his control eye, which did not undergo gene therapy injections, and then using his treated eye, which did. The difference is quite obvious. In fact, the first video of the boy trying to navigate the maze using his control eye was somewhat difficult to watch, as he had to be assisted at every turn. He even struggled to find the door knob on the door at the end of the maze. On the other hand, the video of his attempt using the treated eye is much easier to watch. Let's just say, if it had been a test, he would've aced it.
Very cool study and very promising results.
"But what's with the weird title" you ask? As I stated earlier, last week's blog post title makes reference to Muhammad Ali as the 'greatest boxer of all time,' and since I'm following up on that post, I thought I'd continue the theme. For those of you not in the know, the 'greatest living guitarist' refers to Jose Feliciano, who was born permanently blind. At 64 years of age, it's unlikely that Feliciano's vision will ever be restored with gene therapy, but it's appealing to think of a future in which congenital blindness has become a thing of the past.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Gene Therapy and the Greatest Boxer of All Time
Parkinson's is a nasty, nasty disease. There is no doubt about it. Of course, any disease that is described as both 'chronic' and 'progressive' is not going fun to deal with. A degenerative disorder of the central nervous system, Parkinson's disease (PD) is currently incurable, and effective treatments are nearly non-existent.
And this is where gene therapy comes in. Gene therapy has been considered the holy grail of Parkinson's disease treatment for quite some time. Studies that have focused on use of gene replacement therapies in neural cells have shown promise, but have lacked major efficacy, which would be required for large-scale, multi-phase clinical trials. Various gene therapy strategies have been pursued, all showing positive results, but would still leave PD sufferers with continued standard therapies that can often be cumbersome, expensive, and sometimes nearly as debilitating as the disease itself. A new gene therapy, which takes three previous gene replacement strategies and combines them into one, is being reported by Nature as a potential breakthroug in PD treatment.
It makes total sense...take three different types of gene therapy treatment that have shown moderate success and combine them into one single vector. A multi-functional attack that is aimed at rehabilitating the neural cells in three ways at the exact same time. Genius. And it gets better. The therapy has already been tested on humans, and is expected to move into phase II clinical trials soon. I would love to see this treatment become standard, not only because the eradication of Parkinson's disease would be a beautiful thing, but also because it would solidify gene therapy's place as a viable treatment option for other diseases. I mean, let's face it, there's still a stigma that the public has with gene therapy. And not all of it is without reason. Gene therapy has its risks, one of the largest of which is the insertion of the target gene into a place in the genome that causes major damage to cell function or, even more likely, that causes cancer. Another issue is the current trends in gene therapy research. Everyone would like to see the creation of a treatment for PD, but what about gene therapy treatments for colorblindness or baldness? By comparison, research into these kinds of gene therapy treatments seems a little less awe-inspiring. But hey, who am I to judge? After all, gene therapy research on colorblindness could open the door for other types of ocular disorders, and curing baldness is not always just a matter of vanity; for some, it really is a quality of life issue.
Anyways, I digress. What it really comes down to is this: I want to see the great Muhammad Ali standing tall and proud, without the devastating tremors of Parkinson's racking his body, speaking about what it was like to reclaim his title as World Heavyweight Champion from George Foreman in Zaire during the 'Rumble in the Jungle.' And maybe, just maybe, gene therapy could be the key to granting me this wish.
And this is where gene therapy comes in. Gene therapy has been considered the holy grail of Parkinson's disease treatment for quite some time. Studies that have focused on use of gene replacement therapies in neural cells have shown promise, but have lacked major efficacy, which would be required for large-scale, multi-phase clinical trials. Various gene therapy strategies have been pursued, all showing positive results, but would still leave PD sufferers with continued standard therapies that can often be cumbersome, expensive, and sometimes nearly as debilitating as the disease itself. A new gene therapy, which takes three previous gene replacement strategies and combines them into one, is being reported by Nature as a potential breakthroug in PD treatment.
It makes total sense...take three different types of gene therapy treatment that have shown moderate success and combine them into one single vector. A multi-functional attack that is aimed at rehabilitating the neural cells in three ways at the exact same time. Genius. And it gets better. The therapy has already been tested on humans, and is expected to move into phase II clinical trials soon. I would love to see this treatment become standard, not only because the eradication of Parkinson's disease would be a beautiful thing, but also because it would solidify gene therapy's place as a viable treatment option for other diseases. I mean, let's face it, there's still a stigma that the public has with gene therapy. And not all of it is without reason. Gene therapy has its risks, one of the largest of which is the insertion of the target gene into a place in the genome that causes major damage to cell function or, even more likely, that causes cancer. Another issue is the current trends in gene therapy research. Everyone would like to see the creation of a treatment for PD, but what about gene therapy treatments for colorblindness or baldness? By comparison, research into these kinds of gene therapy treatments seems a little less awe-inspiring. But hey, who am I to judge? After all, gene therapy research on colorblindness could open the door for other types of ocular disorders, and curing baldness is not always just a matter of vanity; for some, it really is a quality of life issue.
Anyways, I digress. What it really comes down to is this: I want to see the great Muhammad Ali standing tall and proud, without the devastating tremors of Parkinson's racking his body, speaking about what it was like to reclaim his title as World Heavyweight Champion from George Foreman in Zaire during the 'Rumble in the Jungle.' And maybe, just maybe, gene therapy could be the key to granting me this wish.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Sky is Burning!
A team of scientists at the High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility in Alaska has published the results of a recent study in which they induced the formation of ionosphere-like plasma within the lower atmosphere of Earth. I'll explain why this is so freakin' cool momentarily, but first I thought I'd briefly share why HAARP itself is worth discussing.
HAARP's purpose, as stated in the Enironmental Impact Statement is as follows:
And this is where things get interesting. In the recent study, which was featured by Nature, researchers were able to crank up the IRI and direct it at the upper atmosphere. The high energy from the IRI's RF signal excited molecules in the atmosphere to the point that they ionized, creating an artificial patch of ionosphere. So what does this mean and why does the government care about creating artificial ionospheres? To answer this question, I will conclude with a scenario that illustrates a potential application of this ability. Let's say that you work at a CIA base of operations in Eastern Europe. You have gathered top secret data that must be relayed to another base in the Middle East. Because there is not a direct line of sight between the two bases, the communication signal is sent skyward and bouced off of the ionosphere to reach the other base in a process called over-the-horizon communication (the CIA has been using this phenomenon for communications and intelligence gathering for decades). However, the angle at which the signal must be sent is fixed (because the ionosphere doesn't move) and enemy intelligence is monitoring transmissions occuring in this region. So instead, you use an RF transmitter to induce an artificial patch of ionosphere, which you bounce your communication signal off of. The angle of transmission is different than expected and the enemy is unable to intercept the signal. Your information remains secret. You're the big hero.
The end.
P.S. Like the Large Hadron Collider, the construction and power-on of HAARP created a fair amount of panic and doomsday scenario talk. It's worth noting that instead of killing us all, the facility has produced a constant feed of information and a wealth of knowledge on the upper atmosphere. Of course, HAARP has not destroyed the Earth. Neither has the LHC. At least not yet...
HAARP's purpose, as stated in the Enironmental Impact Statement is as follows:
The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a congressionally initiated program jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The program's goal is to provide a state-of-the-art U.S. owned ionospheric research facility readily accessible to U.S. scientists from universities, the private sector and government...The program's purpose is to provide a research facility to conduct pioneering experiments in ionospheric phenomena. The data obtained from the proposed research would be used to analyze basic ionospheric properties and to assess the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for communications and surveillance purposes.The facility consists of what's called the Ionosphere Research Instrument (IRI), which is an array of extremely high-power, high-frequency radio frequency (RF) transmitters. The IRI fires electromagnetic radiation into the ionosphere (the same thing that the Sun does, just from the opposite direction and in a highly controlled manner) and then uses sophisticated equipment to monitor the effects. The main idea of all this is to better understand how RF and other signals, such as those that allow us to communicate with our various sattelites, interact with the ionosphere so that we can use these properties to our advantage. This equipment is also capable of altering the properties of the ionosphere for short periods of time. For instance, by exciting the ionosphere with the IRI, researchers are able to imitate an aurora, a phenomenon in which charged particles from the ionosphere impact molecules in the atmosphere causing them to emit light.
And this is where things get interesting. In the recent study, which was featured by Nature, researchers were able to crank up the IRI and direct it at the upper atmosphere. The high energy from the IRI's RF signal excited molecules in the atmosphere to the point that they ionized, creating an artificial patch of ionosphere. So what does this mean and why does the government care about creating artificial ionospheres? To answer this question, I will conclude with a scenario that illustrates a potential application of this ability. Let's say that you work at a CIA base of operations in Eastern Europe. You have gathered top secret data that must be relayed to another base in the Middle East. Because there is not a direct line of sight between the two bases, the communication signal is sent skyward and bouced off of the ionosphere to reach the other base in a process called over-the-horizon communication (the CIA has been using this phenomenon for communications and intelligence gathering for decades). However, the angle at which the signal must be sent is fixed (because the ionosphere doesn't move) and enemy intelligence is monitoring transmissions occuring in this region. So instead, you use an RF transmitter to induce an artificial patch of ionosphere, which you bounce your communication signal off of. The angle of transmission is different than expected and the enemy is unable to intercept the signal. Your information remains secret. You're the big hero.
The end.
P.S. Like the Large Hadron Collider, the construction and power-on of HAARP created a fair amount of panic and doomsday scenario talk. It's worth noting that instead of killing us all, the facility has produced a constant feed of information and a wealth of knowledge on the upper atmosphere. Of course, HAARP has not destroyed the Earth. Neither has the LHC. At least not yet...
Monday, September 28, 2009
How To: Destroy a Planet
With the wrapping up of, from what I've read, a somewhat useless G20 summit, I thought I would take a quick stab at the highly complicated and politicized subject of global climate change. I was reminiscing about an article that I first heard on my local National Public Radio station. The story was about a 16-year-old girl who had become the poster child for skeptics of global warming. If you're interested, you can find the story here, or if you really want a laugh, check out this totally ridiculous version. The young girl had written several papers that tackled issues of climate change, with the main theme of her work being that current models of climate trends are inaccurate and that activists have taken information and data that is full of holes and run with it, in what has come to be known as 'global warming alarmism.' Her website includes a slew of information, including a critique of Al Gore's famous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Now, as much as I appreciate scientific debate, I find the climate change skeptics to be boorish (use of this term is my own personal jeer at the recent comments of Peggy Noonan). And to explain why, I'll start by explaining my thoughts on climate change activists. I'm not an expert on climate change, so I'm not going to address the scientific talking points, but I do fully understand what climate change activists are asking of the public and our society. They are, in essence, asking us to become more responsible members of our planet; to consider the harm we do to our environment as well as to our own health; to think of the impact we will have on our children, and our children's children; to remember that we are not the only species on the Earth struggling to survive. At the root of all of this, they are really asking only one thing: for all of us to consider the consequences of our actions.
If these are the things that climate change activists want, then it's safe to conclude that the anti-alarmists and skeptics would like us to do the exact opposite; to be irresponsible and self-serving; to think nothing of the environment and human health; to let future generations fend for themselves; to utilize the Earth's organisms as a resource that can be depleted, much like our precious fossil fuels, without worry. Basically, I can only conclude that they would like us to act before thinking, addressing major problems only after they are beyond the point of correction, all in order to destroy the Earth, us along with it, leaving behind a smoldering, lifeless chunk of rock to circle the Sun.
Dramatic? Of course. True? You decide. But for as much flack as Al Gore, for example, receives for his viewpoints, it doesn't really matter if the scientific data that he brandishes like a weapon is true or not. Because at the end of the day, he's really only using it for one purpose, and that's to make us better people. The alarmists may be off-putting, but that's because it's always off-putting to hear someone tell you that you are acting like an inconsiderate and thoughtless cretin. So instead of arguing over whether the data is accurate and who's right, why don't we leave that up to the experts, and the rest of us roll up our sleeves and get down to becoming more responsible and humane people. You know...be, like, better.
Now, as much as I appreciate scientific debate, I find the climate change skeptics to be boorish (use of this term is my own personal jeer at the recent comments of Peggy Noonan). And to explain why, I'll start by explaining my thoughts on climate change activists. I'm not an expert on climate change, so I'm not going to address the scientific talking points, but I do fully understand what climate change activists are asking of the public and our society. They are, in essence, asking us to become more responsible members of our planet; to consider the harm we do to our environment as well as to our own health; to think of the impact we will have on our children, and our children's children; to remember that we are not the only species on the Earth struggling to survive. At the root of all of this, they are really asking only one thing: for all of us to consider the consequences of our actions.
If these are the things that climate change activists want, then it's safe to conclude that the anti-alarmists and skeptics would like us to do the exact opposite; to be irresponsible and self-serving; to think nothing of the environment and human health; to let future generations fend for themselves; to utilize the Earth's organisms as a resource that can be depleted, much like our precious fossil fuels, without worry. Basically, I can only conclude that they would like us to act before thinking, addressing major problems only after they are beyond the point of correction, all in order to destroy the Earth, us along with it, leaving behind a smoldering, lifeless chunk of rock to circle the Sun.
Dramatic? Of course. True? You decide. But for as much flack as Al Gore, for example, receives for his viewpoints, it doesn't really matter if the scientific data that he brandishes like a weapon is true or not. Because at the end of the day, he's really only using it for one purpose, and that's to make us better people. The alarmists may be off-putting, but that's because it's always off-putting to hear someone tell you that you are acting like an inconsiderate and thoughtless cretin. So instead of arguing over whether the data is accurate and who's right, why don't we leave that up to the experts, and the rest of us roll up our sleeves and get down to becoming more responsible and humane people. You know...be, like, better.
Monday, September 21, 2009
That's Great, But What Do We DO With It?
While enjoying my coffee and perusing through Nature this fine morning, my mind sort of went off on a tangent on what has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Let's start from the beginning...
A couple of years ago, I was listening to an episode of Talk With the Nation: Science Friday in which Ira Flatow, with whom I am more than a little endeared, was speaking with one of the folks from CERN about the construction and future studies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It was a great interview and it left me feeling very excited about the LHC coming online, even though it wasn't scheduled to happen for many months. As always, Ira took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked something along the lines of, 'that sounds great, but what's the potential application for this?' The physicist from CERN was polite (much moreso than I would've been) in explaining that the LHC was a device built for discovery; for basic science, not applied science. The information gathered from the LHC's experiments had no direct application, but unforeseen applications and benefits could arise as a result. Oh yeah, and don't forget about uncovering the mysteries of the universe. That important too, I guess.
In general, the question 'what are the applications for this?' roughly translates into 'how will this benefit me?' I wanted the CERN physicist to say, "What do you mean applications? Did you not hear what I just said? I said Higgs boson, you fool. We're illuminating the inner workings of the universe and adding to the knowledge of the human race, not developing a new microwave oven." I know that's a little harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.
I don't even do basic science. I do applied science, so I know that question shouldn't bother me, but it does. Why does everything have to have a direct application? Why does it always have to benefit everyone (and benefit them right away)? When did science become less about learning and discovery and all about making Average Joe's life a little easier? I know that applied science and engineering have their places in the world of science because I am, after all, an engineer, but I still feel a sense of wonder and excitement when I read about new scientific discoveries, or watch an episode of Nova, or see pictures of the LHC's massive detectors.
I just hope I'm not the only one.
A couple of years ago, I was listening to an episode of Talk With the Nation: Science Friday in which Ira Flatow, with whom I am more than a little endeared, was speaking with one of the folks from CERN about the construction and future studies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It was a great interview and it left me feeling very excited about the LHC coming online, even though it wasn't scheduled to happen for many months. As always, Ira took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked something along the lines of, 'that sounds great, but what's the potential application for this?' The physicist from CERN was polite (much moreso than I would've been) in explaining that the LHC was a device built for discovery; for basic science, not applied science. The information gathered from the LHC's experiments had no direct application, but unforeseen applications and benefits could arise as a result. Oh yeah, and don't forget about uncovering the mysteries of the universe. That important too, I guess.
In general, the question 'what are the applications for this?' roughly translates into 'how will this benefit me?' I wanted the CERN physicist to say, "What do you mean applications? Did you not hear what I just said? I said Higgs boson, you fool. We're illuminating the inner workings of the universe and adding to the knowledge of the human race, not developing a new microwave oven." I know that's a little harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.
I don't even do basic science. I do applied science, so I know that question shouldn't bother me, but it does. Why does everything have to have a direct application? Why does it always have to benefit everyone (and benefit them right away)? When did science become less about learning and discovery and all about making Average Joe's life a little easier? I know that applied science and engineering have their places in the world of science because I am, after all, an engineer, but I still feel a sense of wonder and excitement when I read about new scientific discoveries, or watch an episode of Nova, or see pictures of the LHC's massive detectors.
I just hope I'm not the only one.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Let the Sun Shine In
I read an interesting article today in Science Magazine on a potential new solar cell design that could greatly enhance energy efficiency capture from sunlight. The method utilizes carbon nanotubes (CNTs) grown between two tiny electrodes, rather than large and expensive silicon wafers, to create the photovoltaic cell. When light strikes the silicon semiconductor in a traditional solar cell, one exciton is produced, which then moves towards an electrode creating a current. Any additional energy from the photon's absorption is given off in the form of heat. In the new CNT-based cells, studies indicate that the nanotubes are able to produce more than one exciton from a single photon absorption event, increasing the overall efficiency of the cell.
Sounds great, right? So what's the catch? The catch is that this phenomenon has only been observed so far at 60 degrees Kelvin, or around -213 degrees Celcius. But that's not all. Work so far has focused on characterizing the effect in a single cell. In order for this process to be applicable to, say, heating your home, the structure would have to be multiplied many billion times in an array. And on top of that, the production of the device would have to be scaled up to make it competitive with current solar panel production.
This is all very interesting and I found the article fascinating, but it reminded me of another solar cell innovation that was awarded as one of TIME Magazine's Best Inventions of 2008. The technology, which has matured to create the west coast-based company Nanosolar, is founded on the ability to 'screen print' the solar cell. Instead of using silicon wafers, Nanosolar uses semiconductor nanoparticles dispersed in a sort of ink, which is then printed onto a substrate very similar to aluminum foil. The result is an extremely thin, very lightweight, inexpensive solar panel. And when I say very lightweight, I mean VERY lightweight: check out the TIME article to see Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen with a massive solar panel perched neatly on his shoulder. Currently, Nanosolar is targeting integration of the panels into energy grids in the form of solar 'power plants,' but the rest of us non-utility folk can sign up to receive updates on when their solar panels will become available to homeowners. I, for one, may be putting my name on that list.
Sounds great, right? So what's the catch? The catch is that this phenomenon has only been observed so far at 60 degrees Kelvin, or around -213 degrees Celcius. But that's not all. Work so far has focused on characterizing the effect in a single cell. In order for this process to be applicable to, say, heating your home, the structure would have to be multiplied many billion times in an array. And on top of that, the production of the device would have to be scaled up to make it competitive with current solar panel production.
This is all very interesting and I found the article fascinating, but it reminded me of another solar cell innovation that was awarded as one of TIME Magazine's Best Inventions of 2008. The technology, which has matured to create the west coast-based company Nanosolar, is founded on the ability to 'screen print' the solar cell. Instead of using silicon wafers, Nanosolar uses semiconductor nanoparticles dispersed in a sort of ink, which is then printed onto a substrate very similar to aluminum foil. The result is an extremely thin, very lightweight, inexpensive solar panel. And when I say very lightweight, I mean VERY lightweight: check out the TIME article to see Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen with a massive solar panel perched neatly on his shoulder. Currently, Nanosolar is targeting integration of the panels into energy grids in the form of solar 'power plants,' but the rest of us non-utility folk can sign up to receive updates on when their solar panels will become available to homeowners. I, for one, may be putting my name on that list.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Rat King
A company from our own backyard, St. Louis-based Sigma-Aldrich, is about to utilize a brigade of genetically modified rats to wage war against a dominant and more numerous army of genetically modified mice. Seriously...
For years, mice have reigned over the world of mammal models of genetic modification. That is, it's comparatively easy to create knock-out mice with precisely controlled genetic traits using embryonic stem cells. However, rats are better human models of many diseases than are mice. So Sigma-Aldrich, with the help of the Medical College of Wisconsin, developed a method of targeting specific genes for removal using a zinc finger nuclease. Rather than using embryonic stem cells, which can be finicky to say the least, the DNA nuclease is introduced to the fertilized rat egg, where it clips particular sequences from the genome. And Voila! You've got yourself a knock-out rat. Sigma plans to have off-the-shelf rats with modifications that are popular among current researchers, as well as custom, made-to-order rats.
If business takes off, Sigma-Aldrich, who already has a strangle-hold on the laboratory chemical reagent market, could become a major player in the laboratory animal trade. This could be a great asset to the economy of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. The area is already transforming, step-by-step, into a legitimate biotechnology hub, but the Sigma Advanced Genetic Engineering Lab with their legions of genetically modified rats could be more like a running charge, complete with screams of nonsensical drivel, to position St. Louis at the forefront of the biotech industry.
For years, mice have reigned over the world of mammal models of genetic modification. That is, it's comparatively easy to create knock-out mice with precisely controlled genetic traits using embryonic stem cells. However, rats are better human models of many diseases than are mice. So Sigma-Aldrich, with the help of the Medical College of Wisconsin, developed a method of targeting specific genes for removal using a zinc finger nuclease. Rather than using embryonic stem cells, which can be finicky to say the least, the DNA nuclease is introduced to the fertilized rat egg, where it clips particular sequences from the genome. And Voila! You've got yourself a knock-out rat. Sigma plans to have off-the-shelf rats with modifications that are popular among current researchers, as well as custom, made-to-order rats.
If business takes off, Sigma-Aldrich, who already has a strangle-hold on the laboratory chemical reagent market, could become a major player in the laboratory animal trade. This could be a great asset to the economy of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. The area is already transforming, step-by-step, into a legitimate biotechnology hub, but the Sigma Advanced Genetic Engineering Lab with their legions of genetically modified rats could be more like a running charge, complete with screams of nonsensical drivel, to position St. Louis at the forefront of the biotech industry.
Monday, August 31, 2009
How NASA Got Its Groove Back
On Friday evening, space shuttle Discovery launched, docking with the International Space Station (ISS) the following evening. The shuttle mission includes a crew swap and a resupply for the station. And for Stephen Colbert fans everywhere, it's the equipment that went up with the shuttle that is most exciting. Here's why.
The ISS is being assembled piece-by-piece, similarly to a prefabricated home. The individual modules are constructed here on Earth, then sent up to the station and assembled on site. The third and final American node module will be added to the station early next year. And so in March, NASA held an online poll to name this module. Voters were able choose between several pre-chosen names, or write in their own. Soon afterwards, Stephen Colbert called upon fans and viewers of his Comedy Central program to vote to put his name in space. Weeks later, with the poll closed and votes tallied, the name Colbert won by a bit of a landslide. Astronaut Sunita Williams made a guest appearance on the Colbert Report to announce the name of the ISS node. And the winner? Tranquility. The studio crowd was not pleased. NASA's reason for not using the winning name from their online poll was that they "don't typically name U.S. space station hardware after living people." Quite a disappointment indeed.
There was good news, though. Among the equipment being sent to the ISS in the current shuttle mission is a zero-gravity treadmill named the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT. This decision by NASA to show some humor and an ability to compromise has made many Colbert fans, myself included, quite giddy. What is most notable about the situation, however, is that NASA may have made a major move to draw renewed interest from a younger generation; a generation that seems to see space flight as little more than a novelty.
Learn more about the ISS and follow the current space shuttle mission, as well as future missions at http://www.nasa.gov/missions/index.html.
The ISS is being assembled piece-by-piece, similarly to a prefabricated home. The individual modules are constructed here on Earth, then sent up to the station and assembled on site. The third and final American node module will be added to the station early next year. And so in March, NASA held an online poll to name this module. Voters were able choose between several pre-chosen names, or write in their own. Soon afterwards, Stephen Colbert called upon fans and viewers of his Comedy Central program to vote to put his name in space. Weeks later, with the poll closed and votes tallied, the name Colbert won by a bit of a landslide. Astronaut Sunita Williams made a guest appearance on the Colbert Report to announce the name of the ISS node. And the winner? Tranquility. The studio crowd was not pleased. NASA's reason for not using the winning name from their online poll was that they "don't typically name U.S. space station hardware after living people." Quite a disappointment indeed.
There was good news, though. Among the equipment being sent to the ISS in the current shuttle mission is a zero-gravity treadmill named the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT. This decision by NASA to show some humor and an ability to compromise has made many Colbert fans, myself included, quite giddy. What is most notable about the situation, however, is that NASA may have made a major move to draw renewed interest from a younger generation; a generation that seems to see space flight as little more than a novelty.
Learn more about the ISS and follow the current space shuttle mission, as well as future missions at http://www.nasa.gov/missions/index.html.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A Case Study: Setting the Proverbial Bar
For my first blog post, I thought it might be easiest to focus on a subject very near and dear to me: my competition. When I present my research, whether it be at a national conference or to faculty in my department, I am consistently asked whether I am familiar with the work of an MIT professor by the name of Tim Swager who is conducting research on a technology known as fluorescent conjugated polymers. So what follows is a brief run-down on conjugated polymers and a very particular way in which they are important.
Conjugated polymers are, of course, polymers: materials that are composed of interconnected chains of repeating subunits, otherwise known as plastics. These polymers are special because they are composed of subunits with properties that allow the polymer to act more like a conductor or semiconductor than traditional polymers (which are normally insulators). Conjugated polymers may be pumped with electricity or light, depending on the polymer, and the material will fluoresce, or emit light. Because the electronic phenomenon that induces light to be emitted is capable of traveling down the chains of the polymer, the fluorescence is greatly amplified in these materials, which are a special class of conjugated polymers called amplifying fluorescence polymers (AFPs).
Among the many applications of AFPs, the one that is most interesting to me is their use in detection of explosives. Most explosives, such as TNT, are nitro-containing cyclic compounds that are capable of quenching the emission of fluorescent materials when the two are brought close together. Because the fluorescence of the conjugated polymer is inherently amplified, so too is its quenching when it comes into contact with explosives like TNT. Not only has Dr. Swager been able to deploy this premise for detection of explosives in the lab, but he's deployed it commercially. He is currently on the science and technology advisory board of ICx Technologies, a Virginia-based company that develops technology for security and threat protection. Among their products are detection systems that use conjugated polymers to detect airborne explosive vapor.
All in all, it's great to see this type of optical sensing technology jumping out of the laboratory and into commercial use. Despite the dizzying amount of research and mound of patents in this field, technologies like this rarely see the marketplace. I suppose I shouldn't look at this as my competition, but rather as an example of how it should be done.
Conjugated polymers are, of course, polymers: materials that are composed of interconnected chains of repeating subunits, otherwise known as plastics. These polymers are special because they are composed of subunits with properties that allow the polymer to act more like a conductor or semiconductor than traditional polymers (which are normally insulators). Conjugated polymers may be pumped with electricity or light, depending on the polymer, and the material will fluoresce, or emit light. Because the electronic phenomenon that induces light to be emitted is capable of traveling down the chains of the polymer, the fluorescence is greatly amplified in these materials, which are a special class of conjugated polymers called amplifying fluorescence polymers (AFPs).
Among the many applications of AFPs, the one that is most interesting to me is their use in detection of explosives. Most explosives, such as TNT, are nitro-containing cyclic compounds that are capable of quenching the emission of fluorescent materials when the two are brought close together. Because the fluorescence of the conjugated polymer is inherently amplified, so too is its quenching when it comes into contact with explosives like TNT. Not only has Dr. Swager been able to deploy this premise for detection of explosives in the lab, but he's deployed it commercially. He is currently on the science and technology advisory board of ICx Technologies, a Virginia-based company that develops technology for security and threat protection. Among their products are detection systems that use conjugated polymers to detect airborne explosive vapor.
All in all, it's great to see this type of optical sensing technology jumping out of the laboratory and into commercial use. Despite the dizzying amount of research and mound of patents in this field, technologies like this rarely see the marketplace. I suppose I shouldn't look at this as my competition, but rather as an example of how it should be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
