Statistical methods of text analysis have become increasingly sophisticated over the years. A good example is automated topic analysis using latent models, two variants of which are Probabilistic latent semantic analysis and Latent Dirichlet Allocation.
Just getting a particle up to near the speed of light isn't good enough for today's physics. To properly unravel the fundamentals of the universe, particles have to be smashed together with enormous force. And two Stanford researchers have just devised a laser-based method that imparts ten times the power of traditional methods at a fraction of the cost.
A new method of separating nuclear isotopes that exploits the slight differences in their electronic energy levels has been developed by physicists in the US. The energy-efficient separator was used to create isotopically pure lithium-7, which is used in some nuclear reactors. Good news for any future nuclear powered space missions perhaps? It could potentially replace the current (and much less energy efficient) methods that were developed in the 1950's
From the article:
By the end of September 2014, Jason Budinoff, an aerospace engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt, MD), is expected to complete the first imaging telescopes ever assembled almost exclusively from 3D-manufactured components. The devices' optics and electronics will be fabricated using conventional methods.
"As far as I know, we are the first to attempt to build an entire instrument with 3D printing," says Budinoff. He is building a fully functional 50 mm camera whose outer tube, baffles, and optical mounts are all printed as a single structure. The instrument is appropriately sized for a CubeSat (a small satellite made of individual units each about 100 mm on a side).
Interesting article about theoretical physics theories vs. experimental verification. Can we state that a theory can be so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing ? If a theory is proved to be untestable experimentally, can we still say that it is a scientific theory ? (not in my opinion)
There is an interesting approach by Feynman that it does not make sense to describe something of which we cannot measure the consequences. So a theory that is so removed from experiment that it cannot be backed by it is pointless and of no consequence. It is a bit as with the statement "if a tree falls in the forrest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". We would typically extrapolate to say that it does make a sound. But actually nobody knows - you would have to take some kind of measurement. But even more fundamentally it does not make any difference! For all intents and purposes there is no point in forcing a prediction that you cannot measure and that therefore has noto reflect an event in your world.
Now something on working methods...
More than anything else Box does, Notes seems to embody the philosophy that in business, you never write for the sake of writing. You write to share with people. After all, memos were never meant to be ends in themselves-just the means.
The discovery of 13 new families, made by physicists Milovan Šuvakov and Veljko Dmitrašinović at the University of Belgrade, brings the new total to 16.
They search numerically for initial conditions resulting in periodic orbits. Reminds to me the methods we employed for the "search for invariant relative motion" and which brought us to discover the magic inclinations (47.9 degrees).
I wonder what are the implications. In any case nice plots :)
Haven't read in detail, but it's not clear to me what it means exactly. If they were discovered numerically (I assume it means via numerical integration), how can they be sure the orbits are truly periodic?
Actually Sante and me just reviewed their paper. Although (some of) the scientists in the paper seem to have good track records their experimental techniques are by far not the best to determine the excess amount of energy produced. Even though their methods may introduce fairly large errors they would not be able to negate the cited power output - so they either are super-sloppy (i.e. they lie) or there is TRULY new physics involved...
A big problem is that they are basically verifying somebody else's experiment - however because this guy is paranoid he does not tell them exactly what he did. In fact they went to his lab and used a setup that HE put together. All they do is do a measurement on it and it seems like they try to be thorough. There is quite a chance that the guy behind it all (Rossi) is setting them up - personally I would think >95%. However, the implications of this being new physics are so big that I think further research should be conducted.
I just answered something very similar to Franco, except the conclusions: I don't think that there is a good reason for us or anybody else in ESA to get involved at this stage.
I agree - if this device would work it there would be other interest groups (like the energy sector) with a much more concrete stake in the technology.
Electron microscope studies reveal that the electron bombardment leads to polymerization of the outer layer of some insect larva's skin and protects them from dehydration. Artificial method to create this effect tested as well. Allows observation of living animals under electron microscope! Question: can the insects still breath after they are back in air? :-S
The Robobee takes off without guide wires!
It is still powered via a wire, and the control is done with the help of a VICON system and on an external computer, but this still is an amazing feat!
The way they make this thing is just as impressive. The manufacturing technique is "pop-up book" folding, a method that has been developed by the same group and that allows a two dimensional monolithic MEMS structures to be easily assembled into a 3D structure. I actually put this as an item of the "Technology List 2020" on the wiki this morning.
Combination of the radio occultation method plus change in the orbital plan in order to observe new target (the volcanic outgassing from Io satellite) by passing though the magnetosphere of Jupiter. It poses a challenge in the sensitivity of the electronics. Maybe it is accepted if the risk is low. Idea for the next GTOC challenge maybe? Optimising the cost on the electronics vs the frequency of passages?
The film Batman Begins shows the character of Batman gliding using a rigid form of his cape. This paper assesses the feasibility of such a glide and finds that while a reasonable distance could be travelled if gliding from a tall building, the speed at which Batman would be travelling would be too dangerous to stop without some method of slowing down.
Water is used for keeping the graphene stacks separate. Without water or some other separation method the different graphene stacks would just stick together and graphene would lose its nice properties (like a huge surface). So, water has nothing to do with energy but is just the material which keeps the graphene stacks at distance. The result is a gel. Still, energy needs to be stored in the gel.
Layer orientation in a gel is random. Additionally to that, cathodes and anodes are about charge seperation. Graphene layers are (as far as I understand) supposed to provide huge surfaces to which something, maybe a charge, can be attached. So do we need ions and electrons? Probably not. Probably just electrons which can travel easily through the gel. I guess the whole gel (and all layers inside) would be nagtively charged, making the gel blob a fluid cathode.
But again, it's just a guess.
Support Vector Machines (SVMs) are fairly simple but powerful machine learning systems. They learn from data and are usually trained before being deployed.
In many cases they need to continue to learn as they do the job and this raised the possibility of feeding it with data that causes it to make bad decisions. Three researchers have recently demonstrated how to do this with the minimum poisoned data to maximum effect. What they discovered is that their method was capable of having a surprisingly large impact on the performance of the SVMs tested. They also point out that it could be possible to direct the induced errors so as to produce particular types of error.
A wide scale 8 year experiment in China on combating desertification seems to have been successful. Instead of using cyanobacteria blooms in the sea, the tested method proposes to spray them on the boundaries of desert/farmland every few days, so that the carbon they capture stays on the ground. It is useful in fixing the organic material against wind erosion only complementary to planting hardy grasses.
Very fast result, nevertheless. Could be classified as a geoengineering activity.