Automation In Clinical Chemistry

During the past few years in clinical biochemistry there has been a considerable increase in clinical demand for investigations.

How do synthetic biologists keep the support of the public?

The science minister, David Willetts, gave an address this morning to an international gathering of researchers who are in London for a symposium on synthetic biology. The event is a UK-US-Chinese collaboration, bringing together the science and engineering academies from those three countries.

Heat-Treatment Terms Used in Aircraft Processes

Critical range, applied to steel, refers to the range of temperature between 1300'F and 1600'F. When steel passes through this temperature range, its internal structure is altered.

Showing posts with label Sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sciences. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Temperature Accuracy With Infrared Temperature Sensors

Temperature measurement devices are popular not only in family groups but also in industrial environments. Moms and dads are probably well acquainted with the popular mercury thermometers or the digital ones used to measure their son's or daughter's temperature and check if they have fever. And just as high temperature can be bad for ourselves, in many industrial processes it is of utmost importance to ensure that all throughout the manufacturing process a certain range of temperatures is kept so that the final product keeps up with the highest and strictest security policies.

Industrial temperature sensors or analysers are highly sensitive devices that are largely adopted by a wide variety of industries that need to ensure that the product they are manufacturing is being produced within the right temperatures. Many products are extremely sensitive to very high or low temperatures and their properties can be severely damaged. For instance, in the IT industry, micro processors require certain temperatures in order not to get damaged. The pharmaceutical industry as well requires certain levels of temperatures so that the chemical compounds do not get ruined or lose their healing properties.

There are different kinds of temperature sensors available in the market according to the manufacturing process in which they are required. Amongst the most widely used and most convenient ones we can definitely mention the infrared thermometers. They are especially used to measure the temperature of the surface of a given object without needing to touch it. Thus, infrared thermometers are extremely useful in those environments in which the object or product to be measured cannot be reached easily. In fact, factory operators that regularly use this temperature sensor instrument agree on the fact that they are very reliable and that the only thing needed is to aim at the object correctly in order to be able to tell in a couple of minutes how hot or cold it is.

As infrared thermometers are not the most accurate temperature measurement instruments, it is highly advisable that certain advice is followed so that you achieve a result that can be relied on.

Heat-Treatment Terms Used in Aircraft Processes

Heat-Treatment related terms used in aircraft processing

Critical Range:
Critical range, applied to steel, refers to the range of temperature between 1300'F and 1600'F. When steel passes through this temperature range, its internal structure is altered. Rapid cooling of the metal through this range of temperature will prevent the normal change of the structure, and unusual properties will be possessed by the material so treated. The heat treatment of steel is based on this phenomenon.

Annealing:
Annealing id the process of heating steel above the critical range, holding it at that temperature until it is uniformly heated and the grain is refined, and then cooling it very slowly. Other materials do not possess critical ranges, but all are annealed by a similar heating process which permits rearrangement of the internal structure, followed by cooling (either slowly or quickly), depending on the material. The annealing process invariably softens the metal and relieves internal strains.

Normalizing:

Normalizing is similar to annealing, but the steel is allowed to cool in still air - a method that is somewhat faster than annealing cooling. Normalizing applies only to steel. It relieves internal strains, softens the metal somewhat less than annealing, and at the same time increases the strength of the steel about 20% above that of annealed material.

Heat treatment:

Heat treatment consists of a series of operations which have as their aim the improvement of the physical properties of a material. In the case of steel these operations are hardening (which is composed of heating and quenching) and tempering.

Hardening:

Hardening of steel is done by heating the metal to a temperature above the critical range and then quenching it. Aluminum alloys are hardened by heating to a temperature above 900'F and quenching.

Quenching

Quenching is the immersion of heated metal in a liquid, usually either oil or water, to accelerate its cooling.

Tempering:

Tempering is the reheating of the hardened steel by heating to a temperature below the critical range, followed by cooling as desired. Tempering is sometimes referred to as drawing.

Carburizing:

Carburizing is the addition of carbon to steel by heating it at a high temperature whiles in contact with a carbonaceous material either in solid, liquid, or gaseous form. Carburizing is best performed on steels containing less than 0.25% carbon content.

Casehardening:

Casehardening consists of carburizing, followed by suitable heat treatment to harden the metal.

UFOs: A National Security Or Science ETH Issue?

An anti UFO ETH (Extraterrestrial Hypthesis) might have historical roots because from the get-go (circa 1947), UFOs (initially called 'flying discs' or 'flying saucers') were not viewed as a scientific issue or problem but rather one of national security - after all, unknown aerial objects were being tracked on radar and observed by credible witnesses including pilots and especially military pilots, invading the sovereign airspace of nations, and I do mean nations from around the world, not just the United States. This era was after all par of the beginnings of the Cold War, so unknown aerial objects would naturally be of intense concern to the governments of not only the superpowers but, in the era of this new nuclear weapons age, to all nations. Further, from the beginning, the 'flying discs' were taken as representing a technology, albeit terrestrial technology, probably Russian (unless you were Russian and then it was American technology).

Though in the early days of the then termed 'flying discs' era, national security was the issue. To avoid overreaction on the part of the public ('the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!), this being just a few years after the turmoil of WW II, the flying disc issue had to be downplayed. Softly, softly and the less said about the Russians the better - flying discs had to be, in public admissions anyway, hoaxes, hallucinations, misidentifications, anything but the Russians or Chinese (or in Russia and China anything but the Yanks).

Ultimately nobody ever really had to worry about the Russians, Chinese or Americans (or any other terrestrial nation for that matter). But that wasn't immediately apparent.

By the time the flying discs were becoming more obviously a scientific issue as official public and unofficial secret investigations started eliminating terrestrial explanations of the artificial kind (unknown but highly advanced and potentially secret Russian, Chinese, American, etc. aircraft), well, by then the subject was well and truly a part of the military complex and intelligence gathering agencies and not just in the USA, though in the USA one not only had the acknowledged U.S. Air Force flying disc investigation, but also the unacknowledged participation of the NSA (National Security Agency), FBI and CIA (as later Freedom of Information suits uncovered). The scientific community was pretty much left out in the cold. Your average Ivory Tower academics don't normally hold top secret security clearances nor are they knowledgeable about foreign military technology capabilities.

So by the time it became clear and publicly acknowledged that UFOs weren't a national security issue, well over two decades had passed, and since by then it was all a non-issue (the only issue that counted being national security), no wonder scientists (with few exceptions) didn't take up the UFO baton as the military and intelligence organizations bowed out - at least they bowed out publicly, but behind the scenes, well that's another story. While publicly and officially stating that UFOs have proved to be of no national security concern, prudence dictates you keep a behind-the-scenes; an unofficial eye on developments; on cases, on things - just in case. "Remember Pearl Harbor" - You don't want to be caught off-guard again!

But the public never did acknowledge the flying discs, or by now termed UFOs were a non-issue - it never wavered in its fascination for UFOs, especially once it became obvious UFOs weren't secret weapons of a terrestrial foreign power. By process of elimination, if UFOs had nothing to do with a terrestrial source, therefore, an extraterrestrial power must lie at the bottom of things - the UFO ETH was born and matured.

To recap, the UFO ETH only came to the fore when the UFO TH (terrestrial hypothesis) was found wanting by official military and other national security agencies. The scientific community was in the dark since UFOs weren't associated with being a scientific issue, but the great unwashed did see the issue as a science issue and the UFO ETH obviously rang a responsive chord. Why? Well they (the public) had been preconditioned into accepting the notion that extraterrestrial life was not only possible but here, and here and now.

Extraterrestrials (usually nasty) in novels and short stories and films and TV shows were part and parcel of the culture of the times, often because it was easy for writers and Hollywood to substitute an alien menace for the red menace of communism. The aliens invaded, but that was just a roundabout way of saying the Commies were going to invade if we didn't 'watch the skies'. Aliens, as substitutes, were also popular in the pulps before WW II, again as stand-ins for representing nasty foreign powers. Aliens were also used as a whipping boy to make social commentaries. Aliens were well established in the public consciousness.

So, left out in the cold by the official establishment, scientists hadn't a real clue about the nature of UFOs any more than the military or public did, but at least the military's jurisdiction - national security - had been eliminated as a possibility, so they now washed their hands of the problem (or so it seemed). The public however wanted answers; the military couldn't provide them other than UFOs posed no threat to national security, so the public turned to the scientists for answers. But the scientists were caught on the hop. All they knew apart from the now non-existent national security issue was that there was not only flying discs being identified as just hoaxes, hallucinations, or misidentifications (for public consumption as reassurance that the flying discs weren't Russian, etc.) but that there was this fringe element towards UFOs - the contactees and flying saucer cults which were loonier than just about anything going.

The scientists weren't really aware that the cultists and contactees and alleged (for public consumption) hoaxes, hallucinations, and misidentifications were the chaff and the haystack. They didn't know that there was wheat and a needle to be dealt with. So, the wishes of the great unwashed be damned, scientists weren't going to dirty their lab coats by entering murky waters dealing with the only UFO residue they knew of - cultists and contactees and hoaxes and misidentifications and hallucinations. So, under pressure, their only possible response was a quick with respect to the UFO ETH "it can't be therefore it isn't - now excuse me for I got better things to do that will better enhance my career prospects".

Science writer's block

You will never write a word if you stop long enough to consider the responsibilities that rest on your shoulders when you sit down to tackle a science story. Your job is to produce an article that is correct, clear and fascinating, that raises implications and proper doubts and leaves your readers grateful, whether they are the world's leading authority on the subject or, more likely, a passer-by who landed on your story by chance.

Dwell on this too long and it becomes reality's version of a paralysing dream. Like the one where you find yourself on stage before a vast audience and realise you've not only forgotten the words to the song but are dressed in nothing but a jumper and socks.

So what to banish from mind? The people you interview may have spent decades pondering a particular phenomenon to grasp the depths and subtleties of its meaning and mysteries. You will have minutes to grab from them enough information to explain their work and perhaps not much longer to put it in a context that an interested but inexpert reader will thank you for.

Consider how much trust your interviewees put in you. Misrepresent their work or opinions and you might as well not bother. An interesting story is a worthless story if the information is wrong.

Now put that thought to one side.

The most valuable asset a journalist has is access to other people's brains and it is your responsibility to pick them. You might interview a Nobel prizewinning academic about their latest world-changing idea and be eager to write it up, but you have a duty to tell readers what other informed people make of it. Your prized researcher might forget to mention the practical or ethical hurdles that others see as terminal blows. The views of serious sceptics are invaluable, because science thrives on criticism, even if scientists do not. Your readers deserve to hear their voices.

People might get grumpy with you for airing valid concerns about their research and even harass you with uppity emails. But don't let that play on your mind.

A generalisation: people who are unfamiliar with science think it is about facts and discoveries. This is how science was taught at my school and I suspect at many others. You have a responsibility to convey science as it is. Wonderful insights into nature do not materialise from nowhere and they are never the final word. They are milestones in long and often disjointed stories that are populated with normal people who display all that is spectacular and dismaying about human behaviour in any walk of life. Your story is precious. One of your greatest – and at times most paralysing – responsibilities is to do it justice.

You have more responsibilities beyond these. Acknowledge them and move on or you will spend the day sat in front of a blank screen eating biscuits as deadlines hurtle past.

Immerse yourself in science and it will lead you to stories that are wondrous and baffling, beautiful and cruel, cute and amusing. Make a note of pieces that grab your attention and work out why they appeal. Learn from them.

They don't have to be profound and luxuriant eight-thousand-word essays. Some years back, New Scientist published a forgettable short story on "smart" flatpack furniture, but I will always remember how it was covered by James Meek, a former science correspondent at the Guardian. The story was never going to win any prizes, but to me it made a good point: that even within the confines of 250 words, there is room for imagination.

The same writer's lovely dispatch on the death of Dolly the Sheep is another that remains lodged in my mind.

Don't ignore the emotions and thoughts people have as they go about their work. They might just reveal something of the passion that drives many scientists. Talking about the discovery of a Neanderthal shelter that was occupied until the last years of that race's existence, Clive Finlayson at the Gibraltar museum described how it felt to sit in the cave and hold a stone tool that had presumably been used to prepare food.

"I saw one flake and went to touch it, knowing it was a tool left by a Neanderthal, and it drew blood," he said. "It can be very powerful being in the cave. You can get that feeling that a Neanderthal was sitting in exactly the same spot, that the only thing separating us is time. It's like a connection over tens of thousands of years and it makes you want to know more. We're humans studying humans."

Science writing is more than explaining science.

Good science writing should pull you into unfamilar worlds, and some of the most memorable are the most uncomfortable. In "An error in the code", a New Yorker feature that was eight years in the making, the writer Richard Preston reported on a genetic condition called Lesch-Nyhan syndrome that can be caused by the change of a single letter in the human genome.

This minuscule glitch has dramatic consequences. Those affected compulsively self-mutilate to the point of chewing off their own fingertips. They instigate situations to bring harm on themselves.

Preston managed to bring out the frustration and despair of the condition without losing sight of the matter-of-fact attitude some patients adopt in order to have anything like a normal life. Few other articles have stopped me so firmly in my tracks.

There is a balance to be struck in science writing. Take your responsibilities seriously, but don't let them get the better of you. Keep them in mind and you are on course to do the right thing by your readers, your interviewees and your story.

Everybody loves Tyrannosaurus

I wonder if Henry Fairfield Osborn created a self-fulfilling prophecy when he named Tyrannosaurus rex. The tyrant king is the most beloved and celebrated of all dinosaurs, and when the first specimen was put on display in 1906 – nothing more than the hips and legs – The New York Times declared Tyrannosaurus to be the "prize fighter of antiquity". It has held onto that top spot ever since.

But our love for Tyrannosaurus can be unhealthy. You don't need to look further than the headlines to see that the great Cretaceous predator has become the standard by which almost all of prehistory is judged. Dunkleosteus – a Devonian armoured fish – "had [a] bite stronger than a T. rex"; the invertebrate Hurdia was heralded as the "T. rex of the Cambrian period"; and, despite having a different shape, Colombia's fossil snake Titanoboa was said to be "as big as T. rex".

I'm almost convinced that there is a journalism guide that advises: "If a catchy headline doesn't readily present itself for a new fossil discovery, a reference to T. rex will do at a pinch."

Granted, such references to Tyrannosaurus are quick and easy ways to invoke the ferocity of extinct organisms, but our reliance on the tyrant becomes more problematic in stories about its dinosaurian kin. Upon making its debut last January, the early dinosaur Eodromaeus was dubbed the "earliest known T. rex relative", and, a few weeks later, the bizarre dinosaur Linhenykus was presented as a "one-fingered T. rex relative". Then, just last month, the dinosaur Zhuchengtyrannus was announced to be "T. rex's new cousin".

The phrases "T. rex relative" and "T. rex cousin" are thrown around so often that they have nearly lost their meaning. Citing the news of Zhuchengtyrannus as a "T. rex cousin", NPR blogger Bill Chappell wrote "It's exciting news, but doesn't it seem like we've heard something similar recently?" He wondered why both Linhenykus and the small tyrannosaur Raptorex had been given the same honorary title.

Dinosaurs have become victims of their own success. The pace of dinosaur discoveries is so rapid – and requires so much context – that journalists simply can't keep up. Only the truly exceptional, eye-grabbing stories make it to press, and when they do the stories are typically along the lines of "New dinosaur discovered. Cousin of [famous dinosaur]. Ooooh."

The tyrannosaurs themselves provide perfect examples. For decades Tyrannosaurus, Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus, and other tyrants were considered to be "Carnosaurs" – a grab-bag group of giant predators that also included Allosaurus, Spinosaurus, and others. Palaeontologists have since split up this dinosaurian mish-mash into a branching tree of theropod dinosaurs.

As is now understood, tyrannosaurs fit inside a highly diverse theropod subgroup called coelurosaurs, which also encompass small, sickle-clawed hunters (Velociraptor); long-necked herbivores with Freddy Krueger claws (Therizinosaurus); ostrich-mimics (Gallimimus); and birds, among others. Even better, within the past 10 years palaeontologists have found a wealth of tyrannosaurs that document the group's evolution from small, feather-covered creatures to some of the largest predators of all time. Zhuchengtyrannus is only the latest tyrannosaur to be welcomed into the family.

Both Eodromaeus and Linhenykus were only distant relatives of Tyrannosaurus. Eodromaeus preceded tyrannosaurs by over 165m years, and was about as closely related to the tyrants as to any other giant, badass theropod you care to name. Linhenykus, on the other claw, belonged to a coelurosaur lineage called alvarezsaurs which were not notably close to the tyrants.

The true "T. rex cousins" were found among the tyrannosauroids – a group that included everything from the pint-sized, fuzzy-feathered Dilong to large, deep-snouted apex predators such as Tyrannosaurus and the recently described Teratophoneus.

In a review of tyrannosaurs published last September, a team of theropod experts noted that at least six new tyrants had been named within a year of their paper's debut, and two more have been named since then. (More are on the way – attendees at last year's Society for Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in Pittsburgh got a preview of a new, as-yet-unnamed tyrant.)

Yet the flock of new tyrants does not give us a complete explanation for the confusion about these dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurus – along with Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus and Edmontosaurus – represents one of the primary dinosaur archetypes that have been popularised for over a century. They are THE dinosaurs, and their long shadows obscure recently discovered species that have led palaeontologists to revise our understanding of dinosaur evolution and relationships.

Take Linhenykus, for example. Who – other than palaeontologists – knows what an alvarezsaur is? From a writer's perspective, it is easier to play up its tenuous connection to Tyrannosaurus than spend a paragraph explaining the dinosaur's unique nature. It doesn't fit in the already established set of familiar dinosaur shapes, so a well-known dinosaur is used to make the introduction.

As science writers, we face the difficult task of condensing technical details into compelling, easily accessible stories that will hopefully catch the eyes of readers before they click over to another webpage. That doesn't mean that we should shrink from accuracy. We are not doing our jobs if we simply refer every sharp-toothed dinosaur to the tyrant family because Tyrannosaurus provides a solid hook. If we fall victim to this trope, we perpetuate a cycle in which no one will understand what an alvarezsaur is because we never explain it and we never explain it because we don't think anyone will understand.

There will always be more dinosaur discoveries than available media space to disseminate their details. That is true of any scientific discipline, and it is why context has become so vital. Our reliance on Tyrannosaurus as an attention-grabbing anchor is just one symptom of a more pervasive affliction in which brevity and page views are valued over placing news in context.

Palaeontologists are not exempt, either. Too often – from grant applications to press releases – we have relied upon the cultural cachet of Tyrannosaurus to get attention.

There is more to palaeontology than Tyrannosaurus rex. Just as the tyrant king was just one member of a rich and diverse dinosaurian family, so are new scientific discoveries intimately connected to the ongoing interrogation of nature. We would do well to remember that.

Brian Switek is the author of Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature. He writes for the WIRED Science blog Laelaps and Smithsonian magazine's Dinosaur Tracking