Blog Posts

Video via Nasa

February 24th, 2011 a dexterous humanoid robot, Robonaut 2, was launched into space to be the first of its kind in space and the first United States robot to make its way to the international space station. NASA and General Motors have been working together to create a more human like robot that can simulate and execute human motions and actions. Succeeding in creating such a robot will allow it to perform current human tasks, potentially the dangerous ones or repetitive tasks while also allowing it to use current tools and technologies used by humans.

Currently, tests are being performed on the robot in order to calibrate it before it is put to use in carrying out missions. Calibrating it involves comparing the motions of the hardware in the 1G environment on Earth, and taking it to the 0G space environment. The first tests on the robot included booting it up and making sure all the circuitry and software made it to the space station in working condition. Just recently, they began testing the movement of the joints and hands. Ultimately, the robot is controlled by a set of software parameters to keep it safe. However, its actions and movements can be controlled from a location on Earth or the space station itself.

Robonaut 2 was built and equipped with a wide range of advantages over the former Robonaut 1. It is capable of carrying out tasks four times faster than the original. Its systems include built in infrared sensors, a high resolution camera, and has an advanced sensing system. Additionally, its movement technologies include extensive neck travel, ultra-high speed joint controllers, enhanced finger and thumb movements, and series elastic joint technology.

Robonaut 2 has an identical twin on the ground that will be used to simulate missions and tasks. It will be placed in a replica environment with panels and systems that simulate that of the space station itself. After the simulation is complete, the program can be then sent to the orbiting Robonaut for execution. Future plans for the robot include creating legs for it to navigate around the space station or possibly wheels and a rover base so it can travel across terrain on a different planet.

See more robots in the element14 Robotics Group.

Cabe

http://twitter.com/Cabe_e14

A letter has been sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman, Mary Schapiro, from six lawmakers in the US Senate arguing against the use the of the term ‘furnishing’ in draft conflict mineral guidelines.

Senator Patrick Leahy, who co-wrote the letter, argues that if companies are allowed to ‘furnish’ rather than ‘file’ disclosures on their use of the six identified ‘conflict minerals’, it could reduce the liability of a company under securities law that undermines the purpose of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The letter says ‘We are very concerned about the outlines of the final rule, in particular, that the Commission will approve a rule that contravenes Congress’ legislative intent’.

The congressional intent is to require companies to file annual reports describing due diligence measures taken to identify the source of the conflict minerals used in products and the chain of custody of those materials. The report should be audited by an independent auditor and should include:

• description of the products are aren’t Democratic Republic of Congo conflict-free,
• identification of the independent authors of the report,
• identification of the facilities used to process conflict minerals,
• the country of origin of the conflict minerals,
• your efforts to determine mine or location of the origin of the conflict minerals, and
• a certification statement.

The essential difference is that to ‘file’ a disclosure is the formal submission of a document (often in a specific format) to the SEC, for which a company would be liable under the Exchange Act if it was untrue/negligent etc. ‘Furnishing’ on the other hand is essentially providing information, through a press release for example, and this does not therefore carry the same level of legal obligation to be accurate as a SEC filing would.

Would the obligation to furnish rather than file conflict mineral information undermine the intentions of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act? Would a more simplified method of submitting conflict mineral information be welcome for the final guidelines? How would such a difference affect your business?

Source: Bloomberg Business Week

• Click here for more Conflict Minerals / Dodd-Frank Act information or visit our online store.

• Register to receive the latest Conflict Minerals / Dodd-Frank Act legislation updates

• Got an opinion you want to share? Leave your comments below

Moore's Law states that the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively into an integrated circuit will double every two years or become half their original size. In reality, it turns out that the doubling/shrinking happens every 18 months. Based on prediction, the law will hold true until somewhere between 2015 and 2020. At which point, a single transistor will be the size of one atom.

Can single atom transistors exist? The answer is shocking, yes they can and already exist.

3D model constructed by a scanning tunnelling microscope of the single atom Phosphorus transistor (via UNSW)

Researchers at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Australia, have precisely placed a single phosphorus atom between atomic-scale electrodes and control gates. UNSW Professor Michelle Simmons, leader of the project at the ARC Centre for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology, explained, "...this device is perfect... This is the first time anyone has shown control of a single atom in a substrate with this level of precise accuracy. Our group has proved that it is really possible to position one phosphorus atom in a silicon environment - exactly as we need it - with near-atomic precision, and at the same time register gates."

Inside a high-vacuum chamber, the team used a scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) to see/manipulate the atom on the crystalline substrate. A lithographic process was used to pattern the phosphorus atom into a usable transistor. A non-reactive layer of hydrogen was applied to the atomic circuit. The STM then removed selected hydrogen atoms, etching the surface.  A chemical reaction placed the phosphorus atoms in the center. Then everything is encapsulated in silicon. Connections through the silicon allow for control on the individual atoms. The results were theoretical agreement with what a single phosphorus atom transistor could do.

Although the team stated that they beat Moore's Law, they now have to manufacture inexpensive devices using the technology to solidify an actual law-break. They have only 3 years to do it. I am hoping they do so. Keep in mind, controlling individual atom is at the core of quantum computing, and this might just bring about the technological singularity much faster. (When innovation can happen in an instant, every instant.)

Cabe

http://twitter.com/Cabe_e14

Quantum Dot concept image (via the Optical Society Journal "Remote switching of cellular activity and cell signaling using light in conjunction with quantum dots"

Lih Lin and her research team at the University of Washington have been working with Quantum Dot based stimulation of cells within the brain with surprising results. Quantum Dots (QD) are small crystal shaped particles only a few nanometers wide that behave similarly to semiconductors. They are readily excited by light. When exposed to a light source, the QDs become negatively charged. The small size and composition give them extraordinary fluorescent optical properties, and are easily adjusted by changing the size or physical composition.

Lih Lin explained where the QDs are used, "Many brain disorders are caused by imbalanced neural activity... Manipulation of specific neurons could permit the restoration of normal activity levels."

The teams succeeded in creating action potentials within the neurons by exciting quantum dots nearby. The stimulation of the QD created a negative charged surrounding it and opened up the ion channels in the neurons. The ion channels are vital to stimulating the brain cells by allowing positive charges to flow into the cell and create an action potential. Additionally, the action potential in neurons is what sends messages to other neurons or nerve cells within the body allowing a form of communication to occur. The goal is to use quantum dots to control the abnormal signal firing within the brain cause by Parkinson's, for example.

QDs can be used to treat a wide variety of brain disorders from dementia to depression. Furthermore, they may be able to treat problems within the eye and possibly blindness. The only drawback right now is creating a way to shine a light on the quantum dots while they are in the brain.

The first use of QDs will likely happen in the eye, where light is constantly absorbed. However, QDs could be delivered to the brain through the veins where they could help balance out the neural activity. Quantum Dots have a bright future in the medical field treating disorders and can possibly do so without any dangerous or unwanted side effects that come along with current brain disorder treatments.

Cabe

http://twitter.com/Cabe_e14

It has been a week since my last event at the World Championships. In those seven days I have traveled to Dallas for a speaking opportunity with The Hartford, we packed up our rental home in Long Beach, Amelia and I drove back to Bozeman, we unpacked and now we are in the throws of packing up life here in Bozeman as we embrace a new adventure in Colorado. In short, I have a bit on my mind.

Thus it has been difficult to really unpack all my thoughts/emotions from Worlds. So here is my knee-jerk take on things.

For the first time I dedicated myself to a single event on the track: the individual pursuit. I believe this event aligns well with the direction my cycling has been developing over the past few years, but not training with the sprinters during track workouts took some adjustment. Adapt I did, and I quickly found myself very encouraged with my progress throughout the training in LA. By the time Worlds rolled around I was confident in my ability to make the finals for a medal in the event. Rested and excited for race day I was looking to have one of my best days on the track, a day when everything came together. Unfortunately, by the time the clock stopped my time told a different story.For reasons I am still unaware of, my legs did not show up on race day and I clocked a time well off my training times netting me a 6^th place. My disappointment was very evident yet I still struggle to find fault with my game plan or the effort that I put into the pedal. I finished the pursuit fully drained but none the less having gone much slower than anticipated. My only explanation is that phenomenon of luck or fortune that often makes the difference between an average performance and a great one.

My second competition was the Kilometer, an event I had invested little if any specific training time to in months. Despite this lack of attention I was able to capitalize on my natural sprint to carry me to a personal best for the LA Velodrome. It should be noted that the LA track and I have a bit of a love/hate relationship. I really enjoy racing and training on the LA track as it is our finest velodrome venue in the states. However, in competition it has all too often gotten the best of me, sapping me of my strength and sending me home dragging my tail.

My final event at Worlds was on face-value, the least important and the biggest unknown. For the first time in Paralympic history we hosted a mass start event, the Scratch race. Not only would this be the first mass start race on the track for Paralympic athletes in World competition it marked my first mass start on a track ever. To say I was nervous would be a bit of an understatement. The race would entail 22 riders on the line for a 40 lap first-to-cross-the line wins race

.

For the first half of the race I could focus on little else than my front wheel and immediate surroundings. On several occasions I avoided mass carnage thanks to a solid shoulder or a quick flick of the front wheel. But as my confidence grew I was able to trust my bike handling skills and began racing with a broader awareness of what was going on both in front and behind me in the race. With half the race to go, I had a teammate in a break up ahead.  This placed me in the role of defending my teammate’s position by attempting to foil any attempts to bridge the gap. Unlike the days earlier my legs were feeling alive with plenty of pop. I played my roll of defense as best I could successfully preventing other riders from bridging the gap. I also won the bunch sprint at the end for 9^th.

Despite my reservations for the scratch race in the beginning this event was my personal highlight of Worlds and I am eagerly anticipating next year’s Worlds when it will become an official World Championship event.

So at this point what are my take homes? Evaluating my overall fitness I am pleased with my conditioning at this point in the season and despite my finishes at Worlds I know that I have the strength necessary to finish on the podium with the Worlds best. Over the next few weeks training data will be crunched and digested as my coach and I draft a training plan that will deliver me on the podium in 190 days in London.

The United Nations Environment Programme has released a report looking into the waste electronics trade in Africa.#

Key findings of the report were:

• The use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) equipment in Africa has rapidly increased in the last few years in an attempt to bridge the ‘digital divide’ felt between developing and developed countries. This has occurred through the import of vast quantities of ‘used’ equipment. When this equipment reaches end-of-life, the infrastructure and resources for recycling the e-waste to minimise effects on human and the environment, as well as maximise re-use of salvageable items does not exist.
• E-waste assessments showed that overall use of EEE in Africa is low in comparison to world usage but the growth rate is very high (use of personal computers has increased 10x, mobile phones increased 100x).
• The e-waste problem is caused both by the increased rate of usage by inhabitants and the growing import of WEEE from outside the continent. In 2009, 70% of all imports were WEEE with 30% having been labelled as working EEE. West Africa generates between 650,000 – 1,000,000 tonnes of WEEE per annum.
• Emergence of an additional category of EEE – ‘near-end-of-life’. This equipment can be exported as EEE but in reality is in such poor condition that it will soon cease to operate and become WEEE.
• In Accra and Lagos alone, over 30,000 people are employed in the recycling / refurbishment sector.
•  Collection and recycling of e-waste is almost entirely carried out informally with workers earning between US$0.22 and US$9.50 per day (The international poverty line sits at US$1.25 per day).
• The UK was found to be the biggest exporter of EEE, with Nigeria the biggest importer.

The report concluded:

• A solution clearly needs to be found which tackles the growing problem of e-waste and near-end-of-life equipment whilst at the same time not removing the means of employment for thousands of workers.
• Investment is needed to form an infrastructure and resource pool to create well-functioning collection and recycling processes and practices. The link between the informal and formal structures is ‘pivotal’ in achieving this.
• An abundant source of labour replaces the need for investment in sorting / shredding machines reducing the start up costs whilst training and equipment must be provided to maximise the safety of the workers and the potential revenue available from recovered goods.

To read the full report click here.

Or visit the UNEP website for more information.

• Click here for more WEEE Directive information or visit our online store.

• Register to receive the latest WEEE Directive legislation updates

• Got an opinion you want to share? Leave your comments below

Google's ambitious bid to acquire Motorola Mobile, the international phone maker, has been rubberstamped by authorities in the US. The announcement was made a matter of hours after Google received clearance from authorities in Europe.

Indeed, the European Commission determined that the proposed buyout would not raise competition issues in the market for operating systems for handheld devices. US regulators, meanwhile, agreed with this verdict, but pledged to continue to pay attention to Google and its use of patents.

Before the deal is concluded, however, regulators in China, Taiwan and Israel must give their backing to the proposed takeover, as these countries are linked to the manufacturing process.

Motorola split into two divisions last year, and Google is keen to acquire the business that specialises in making mobile phones and tablets. Through the deal, Google will immediately gain access to more than 17,000 of Motorola Mobility's patents, which will help to ring fence the company against lawsuits from rival firms.

In addition to the patents, Google is keen to gain ownership of Motorola's wireless accessories, set-top boxes and video distribution systems, as well as the firm's wireline broadband infrastructure products.

But according to Joaquin Almunia, the EU's Competition Commissioner, the deal would not significantly reduce competition in what is currently a very fierce marketplace. In a statement, he added: "The commission will continue to keep a close eye on the behaviour of all market players in the sector, particularly the increasingly strategic use of patents."

The support of the EU for the proposed takeover is an important milestone for Google, according to the firm's Vice-President Don Harrison, who explained that Motorola remains central to the firm's long-term ambitions.

"As we outlined in August, the combination of Google and Motorola Mobility will help supercharge Android," he commented. "It will also enhance competition and offer consumers faster innovation, greater choice and wonderful user experiences."

The EU commission explained that it backed the buyout after concluding that Google is unlikely to restrict the use of Android solely to Motorola, observing that the mobile phone firm is a "minor player in the European Economic Area".

Google, of course, is still embroiled in various patent disputes in court rooms around the world and this takeover situation is key to a number of those ongoing battles.