This innovation is hoped to be embedded into tables and work surfaces so that as soon as a device is placed on the surface, it will be able to draw power. The technology uses magnetic fields to transmit up to 60 watts of power to a distance of up to two to three feet while only losing around 25% of the power during transmission.

A major concern of any wireless power technology is its possible effects on users. Fortunately during the demonstration the electricity was broadcast without electrocuting anyone who passed between the transmitter and the receiver. Intel’s lead researcher Josh Smith explained that, “The trick with wireless power is not that you can do it; it is that you can do it safely and efficiently.” Magnetic fields, used by Intel’s WREL technology do not affect the human body (at least as far as we currently know), unlike electric fields, which might give the user a zap.

The idea of using resonant magnetic fields to wirelessly transmit electricity was demonstrated by a team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who refer to their idea as WiTricity. More recently Intel researchers joined forces with MIT to explore the phenomenon known as ”resonant induction,” and the outcome is a technology capable of transmitting power several feet away without wires.

Currently, resonant induction is used to recharge small devices such as electric toothbrushes. Future induction systems based on Intel’s technology will not be restricted to a physical touch between transmitter and receiver and will be able to transmit power over a distance of several feet with efficiency of 50 percent or more.

“In the future, your kitchen counters might do it [supply the power],” Mr. Smith said. “You’d just drop your espresso maker down on them and you would never have to plug it in.”

The new technology would initially be used to charge the battery of devices such as laptops, cameras, and cell phones, but Intel hopes to eventually eliminate the use of batteries altogether. Enderle Group analyst Rob Enderle said, “That is potentially a world changing event. This is the closest we’ve had to something being commercially available in this class. Previous wireless power systems consisted basically of firing lightning bolts from sending to receiving units.”

Intel is not the only player in the growing market of wireless power companies. Many companies are currently working on different types of wireless power technologies. Two American start-up companies, WildCharge and WiPower, have already shown simpler wireless power technologies. Intel’s next target is to design a system to recharge a laptop computer without wires.

Intel looks on this next development as a strategic move since attaching a WREL receiving antenna to a laptop would be easier than trying to implement the WREL technology into cell phones or PDAs due to their small size compared to the WREL receiver. If successful, the system would be implemented in airports, offices, and other buildings and deliver power to laptops and other mobile devices. The technology could also be built into plugged in computer components, such as monitors, to enable them to broadcast power to devices left on desks or carried into rooms.

Smith says that Intel’s wireless power system is still in an early stage of development and much research remains before it can be brought to the market. “You’d like to cut the last cord,” Smith said. “It’s great that we have wireless email and wireless internet and stuff like that but at the end of the day it would be nice to have wireless recharge as well.”

You can read more about MIT’s first test of the technology mentioned above in “Wireless Power Demonstrated,” where a 60 watt light bulb was able to be lit wirelessly from a distance of about 2 meters in mid 2007. Another wireless power technology is currently being developed by the U.S. company Fulton Innovation under the title “eCoupled Wireless Power.” While waiting for all those wireless power technologies to be developed, you can check out a new, fully operational, green plug universal adapter, which helps you power all your devices from a single adapter.

Your body has a signature odor, just as your fingers have unique prints. And that “eau d’you” remains even if you change what you eat, a new study finds.

Mammals such as mice and humans are known to have unique, genetically determined body odors, called odortypes, which act something like olfactory nametags, helping distinguish to individuals from one another, even pick out a mate.

An individual’s odortype is determined in part by genes in a genomic region called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), which plays a role in the immune system and are found in most vertebrates.

Sweat and urine

Odortype information is transmitted through body fluids such as sweat and urine, which contain numerous airborne chemical molecules known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), many of which give off an odor, as anyone who’s been in a gym locker room probably knows.

Meanwhile, the type of food an animal or person eats can influence their body odor; garlic, when consumed in large amounts, is a well-known example.

So researchers at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia looked into the question of whether or not changes in diet could possibly get in the way of one’s genetically determined odortype and thus mask aromatic identity.

In behavioral tests, “sensor” mice were trained to use their sense of smell to choose between pairs of test mice that differed in MHC genes, diet or both. Researchers used chemical analyses to examine the array of VOC’s in urine of mice having different MHC backgrounds and fed different diets.

The results, detailed in the October 31 issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, indicate that genetically determined odortypes persisted regardless of what the mice ate, even though dietary changes did strongly influence the odor profiles of individual mice. Both the sensor mice and chemical analyses could still detect the underlying odortypes.

Like a fingerprint

“The findings using this animal model support the proposition that body odors provide a consistent ‘odorprint’ analogous to a fingerprint or DNA sample,” said study author Gary Beauchamp, a behavioral biologist at Monell.

“These findings indicate that biologically based odorprints, like fingerprints, could be a reliable way to identify individuals,” said lead author Jae Kwak, a Monell chemist. “If this can be shown to be the case for humans, it opens the possibility that devices can be developed to detect individual odorprints in humans.”

Beauchamp added that similar methods are being used to look for body odor differences associated with disease. Such research could lead to the development of electronic sensors for early detection and rapid diagnosis of disorders such as skin and lung cancer and certain viral diseases.

Hydrogen is the cleanest and most abundant fuel there is, but extracting it from water or organic material is currently not a very efficient process. Scientists are therefore studying certain bacteria that exhale hydrogen as part of their normal metabolism.

“The production of hydrogen by microorganisms is intimately linked to their cellular processes, which must be understood to optimize bioenergy yields,” said Amy VanFossen of North Carolina State University.

Of particular interest are microbes that thrive in hot temperatures, near the boiling point of water. VanFossen and her colleagues carried out a detailed DNA study of one of these thermophilic (heat-loving) bacteria called Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus, which was first found in a hot spring in New Zealand.

The results, presented last week at the American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia, indicate which genes allow C. saccharolyticus to eat plant material, referred to as biomass, and expel hydrogen in the process.

Fuel cell vehicles are starting to be available for lease in California and the New York area. They run off of hydrogen gas and emit only water vapor out the tail pipe.

Hydrogen can be found everywhere: it’s the “H” in H2O and a major element in biological processes. The problem is that it takes quite a bit of energy to separate the hydrogen from the molecules it is found in.

However, certain organisms, such as the bacteria in cow stomachs , get energy from food through a chemical reaction that releases hydrogen gas. Often this hydrogen is immediately taken up by other bacteria, called methanogens , that convert it to methane .

One of the challenges, therefore, of producing hydrogen from bacteria is to prevent the methanogens from gobbling up the gas. The advantage of thermophiles is that they operate at temperatures that are typically too hot for methanogens. C. saccharolyticus, for example, prefers a toasty 160 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius).

Furthermore, the chemistry of hydrogen formation is easier at these higher temperatures, said Servé Kengen from Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

“In general, thermophiles have a simpler fermentation pattern compared to [lower temperature] mesophiles, resulting in fewer byproducts,” he said.

Bionic microbe
Kengen is part of a European Union project called Hyvolution, which is developing decentralized hydrogen production that can be performed near where biomass is grown.

“Biological hydrogen production is well suited for decentralized energy production,” Kengen said. “The process is performed at almost ambient temperature and pressure, and therefore it is expected to be less energy intensive than thermochemical or electrochemical production methods [which are alternative ways to get hydrogen].”

Kengen said that C. saccharolyticus, or what he calls “Caldi,” is very attractive for this application. It is unique in that it eats a wide range of plant materials, including cellulose , and can digest different sugars (technically carbohydrates) at the same time.

Technology is all about making things smaller, and to that end, right now they’re working on making the smallest things possible. Nanotechnology is the science of making robots that aren’t much bigger than a molecule, and there are lots of reasons for doing it, the biggest being because we fucking can.

Imagine sending a million microscopic machines into a person’s bloodstream programmed to attack a tumor, or shoot the AIDS virus with tiny little phasers. Imagine swarms of little cleaning droids mopping up the pollution in our rivers, or tiny manufacturing droids that can build anything we want, in seconds, molecule-by-molecule.

The big problem is, of course, how you actually build trillions of these little bastards. Simple: you teach them to replicate like cells, using materials from the environment.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

K. Eric Drexler, one of the founding fathers of the whole nanotechnology concept, came up with a number of spine-chillingly plausible doomsday scenarios. The problem is our nanobots would be like cellular terminators, much more advanced than any of the pansy-ass creations nature invented. They could out-compete organic life overnight, obliterating it in a frenzy of Darwinism.

Taken to its extreme, we have the scenario affectionately known as the gray goo problem, which speculates the machines would simply start replicating out of control until everything in existence is just a mass of tiny, scuttling robots, which scientists imagine would look like a pile of gray slop floating through the void.

So, Basically It’s Like…

Imagine you meet a magical leprechaun. For a bargain price, he offers to fix up the your house and add an extra room. So you take him home, and he proceeds to eat your house and shit out a hundred and forty more leprechans, which promptly murder you.

How Long Have We Got?

Scientists excitedly assure us that we will have a fully operational murderous death-swarm within twenty years, maybe even as soon as 2010. Right now they’re trying to build something called a fabricator, which from our reading is some kind of indestructible robot swarm-queen built out of diamond, who will give birth to trillions of nanomachines and command them to consume all in their path.

Risk Level: 10

Basically the only thing that will save us from getting transformed into globulets of grey goo in a few years will be if the Large Hadron Collider kills us first.

This article was really interesting to me since it was a butterfly that made me realize that god existed as a child. I remember thinking there is no way something this pretty and delicate could evolve and survive on it’s own. Good luck trying to explain it scientifically lol . And yes I know it’s a little gay to say what I just did.

ScienceDaily (June 20, 2008) — A zebra’s stripes, a seashell’s spirals, a butterfly’s wings: these are all examples of patterns in nature. The formation of patterns is a puzzle for mathematicians and biologists alike. How does the delicate design of a butterfly’s wings come from a single fertilized egg? How does pattern emerge out of no pattern?

Using computer models and live cells, researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered a specific pattern that can direct cell movement and may help us understand how metastatic cancer cells move.

“Pattern formation is a classic problem in embryology,” says Denise Montell, Ph.D., a professor of biological chemistry at Hopkins. “At some point, cells in an embryo must separate into those that will become heart cells, liver cells, blood cells and so on. Although this has been studied for years, there is still a lot we don’t understand.”

As an example of pattern formation, the researchers studied the process of how about six cells in the fruit fly distinguish themselves from neighboring cells and move from one location in the ovary to another during egg development. “In order for this cell migration to happen, you have to have cells that go and cells that stay,” says Montell. “There must be a clear distinction — a separation between different types of cells, which on the surface look the same.”

Previous work identified a specific signal necessary for getting these fly egg cells to move; the problem is that this signal is “graded.” Like drops of ink spreading out on wet paper, this signal travels in between surrounding cells, gradually fading away as it moves outwards. But clear lines are required for pattern formation — there is no grey area between a zebra’s black and white stripes, between heart and liver cells and, in this case, between migrating cells and those that stay put.

How are graded signals converted to a clear move or stay signal? By examining flies containing mutations in different genes, the researchers discovered that one gene in particular, called apontic, is important for converting a graded signal. “When apontic is mutated, the distinction between migrating and nonmigrating cells is fuzzy,” says Michelle Starz-Gaiano, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow in biological chemistry. “In these mutants, we see a lot of cases where migrating cells do not properly detach from their neighbors but instead drag them along as they move away.” This showed that the graded signal alone was not sufficient to kick-start the proper number of cells, but instead needed help from apontic.

Once the team discovered that apontic is important for getting these cells to move, they set out to figure out how apontic works. Collaborating with mathematician Hans Meinhardt, Ph.D., a professor emeritus at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, they designed a computer model that could simulate how graded signals are converted to commands that tell cells to move or to stay.

By making certain assumptions about each gene and assigning functions to each protein, the team built a simple circuit that can predict a cell’s behavior using the graded signal, apontic, and another previously discovered protein called slbo (pronounced “slow-bo”). The computer model shows that in a cell, the graded signal turns on both apontic and slbo. But apontic and slbo work against and battle each other: when one gains a slight advantage, the other weakens, which in turn causes the first to gain an even bigger advantage. This continues until one dominates in each cell. If slbo wins, the cell moves but if apontic wins, the cell stays put; thus a clear separation between move or stay is achieved.

“Not only is this a new solution to the problem of how to create a pattern out of no pattern, but we have also discovered that apontic is a new regulator of cell migration,” says Montell.

Cell migration likely underlies the spreading of cancer cells beyond an original tumor to other areas of the body. Understanding and therefore being able to manipulate the cell migration pathway could potentially prevent the development of these new tumors. At this stage, Montell says, “it’s more about just understanding what the positive and negative regulators of cell migration are.”

The research was funded by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health.

This study was published in the May 13 issue of Developmental Cell. Authors on the paper are Starz-Gaiano, Mariana Melani, Xiaobo Wang, and Montell, all of Hopkins; and Hans Meinhardt of the Max-Planck-Institut, Tübingen, Germany.

Suppose we were time travellers, and could transmit one key item of modern knowledge to a great intellect of the ancient world - Aristotle, for instance. What would we choose to tell them, a single sentence that would most transform their view of the world? We could tell them the scale of the universe - that the stars are other suns, and that there are billions of them. Or that all species emerged, over billions of years, via natural selection.

But I think what would enlighten them most of all would be the knowledge that all the stuff in the world is made of atoms - not of earth, air, fire and water, as the ancients believed. But what are the atoms themselves made of? Are they like an onion-skin with layer upon layer of structure, or will we soon reach bedrock, in the sense that the stuff of the universe will be fully understood?

It might seem paradoxical that the biggest scientific instruments of all are needed in order to probe the very smallest things in nature. The micro-world is inherently “fuzzy” - the sharper the detail we wish to study, the higher the energy that is required and the bigger the accelerator that is needed.

The Cern laboratory in Geneva was set up in 1955, to bring together European scientists who wished to pursue research into the nuclear and sub-nuclear world. Physicists then had greater clout than other scientists because the memory of their role in the second world war was fresh in people’s minds. Through a succession of projects - each too expensive for any single European country to fund - Cern has been at the forefront of endeavour to build ever more powerful accelerators probing ever smaller scales. This culminates in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Within its circular tunnel, 27km in circumference, protons hurtle around at 99.99% of the speed of light. The amazing technology combines huge civil engineering with microscopic precision.

Cern is a triumph of European collaboration, but it now has a global ascendancy, and is the premier laboratory in the world for particle physics. When it switches on this summer, the LHC will generate, in a microscopic region where beams of particles collide, a concentration of energy that has never been achieved before - a concentration that mimics, in microcosm, the conditions that prevailed in the universe during the first trillionth of a second after the big bang.

The impacts may generate particles of a novel kind never before detected in a laboratory (and which may even never have existed on the earth before). This possibility is especially interesting, because one of the most perplexing features of our universe is that there is a lot of material which isn’t made up of ordinary atoms. It’s possible that this “dark matter” consists of particles that are left over from the fiery beginning of the universe. The LHC may allow scientists to create and study these particles.

There are strengthening links between the sciences of the very large and the very small. It’s even possible that the LHC might tell us about the nature of space itself. In everyday life we regard space as dull vacuum. But this dismissive attitude is as misleading as it would be for us to believe that invisible clear air is less substantial that the clouds floating in it. Most theorists suspect that space has an intricate structure - that it is “grainy” - but that this structure is on a much finer scale than any known subatomic particle. The structure could be of an exotic kind: extra dimensions, over and above the three that we are used to (up and down, backward and forward, left and right).

A polished surface may seem smooth, but when viewed under a microscope it has bumps and dips in it: likewise our space, viewed on an ultra-fine scale, may have extra dimensions. The favoured view is that these extra dimensions only manifest themselves on scales a trillion trillion times smaller than atoms, and one of the most fascinating outcomes from the LHC could be the first evidence for them.

Whatever comes out of the LHC, the results will be a stimulus to next-generation Einsteins who will achieve the next steps in a quest, which started in ancient times, to understand the building blocks of the natural world.