23 Oct 2012

Lack of sleep can slow you down



Peaceful at sleep. Photo: By Arrangement 
 
Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, have found that regardless of how tired you think you are, lack of sleep can influence the way you do certain tasks.
If you sleep only for five to six hours, it is bound to affect your work negatively. Experts recommend eight hours of sleep for ideal health and productivity.
Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, have found that regardless of how tired you think you are, lack of sleep can influence the way you do certain tasks.
“Our team decided to look at how sleep might affect complex visual search tasks because they are common in safety-sensitive activities such as air-traffic control, baggage screening and monitoring power plants,” Jeanne F. Duffy at BWH was quoted as saying in the The Journal of Vision.
“These types of jobs involve processes that require repeated, quick memory encoding and retrieval of visual information, in combination with decision making about the information,” added Duffy.
Researchers collected and analyzed data from visual search tasks from a group of participants over one month’s study. In the first week, all participants were scheduled to sleep 10-12 hours per night to make sure they were well rested.
For the following three weeks, the participants were scheduled to sleep the equivalent of 5.6 hours per night and also had their sleep times scheduled on a 28-hour cycle, mirroring chronic jet lag.
The research team gave the participants computer tests that involved visual search tasks and recorded how quickly the participants could find important information, and also how accurate they were.
The longer the participants were awake, the more slowly they identified the important information in the test, the team observed.
Additionally, during the biological night time, 12 a.m. to 6 a.m., participants (who were unaware of the time throughout the study) performed the tasks more slowly than they did during the daytime.

Are Nobel prizes, “a charming anachronism”?


D. BALASUBRAMANIAN

  
Question of credit: The boson is named after Higgs, who along with five others proposed the mechanism that suggested the particle. A team of 6,000 people proved them right. 
 
AP Question of credit: The boson is named after Higgs, who along with five others proposed the mechanism that suggested the particle. A team of 6,000 people proved them right.
Every year around this time, when the Nobel prizes are awarded, debates start about who missed out, whether the ones who got them deserved them and so forth. This year, such debates started a month ahead, with columns by well known scientists in journals and newspapers. Professor Athene Donald of Cambridge asked in the 17 September 2012 issue of The Telegraph “how many scientists does it take to make a discovery?” and that the era of the lone genius, as epitomised by Albert Einstein, has long gone.
Well, while Alfred Nobel himself had stipulated that the prize be given to an outstanding discovery made during the year, prizes are today given for discoveries and inventions made much earlier, and their importance realised in time. Also, while it was generally given earlier for a single individual, the Foundation expanded it to three, and no more than three, to share the prize.
Debate is not restricted to the issue of single versus multiple alone. Several more issues concerning the prize have been raised, each worthy of consideration in itself. Not accounting for, or addressing these concerns, has made the journal Scientific American state in its editorial page of October 8, 2012 that, in many ways, the Nobel Prize is a charming anachronism. In other words, it has not kept up with the changed, and changing, landscape and practices of sciences and how it is done.
Some of the issues are: (1) is it for a lone genius, or even a threesome, or should a team not be awarded? (2) Is the stipulation for disciplines (physics, chemistry, medicine) relevant any longer? (3) Why are the rules different for different categories of prizes? (4) Do we have to stick to the “year of discovery” as Nobel wanted? (5) Do we add any more scientific disciplines for recognition? Some of these issues are interlinked.
Many had expected the Higgs Boson (and Peter Higgs) to be recognized by the Prize this year. It was not, and that highlights some of the above issues. The boson is named after Higgs who — along with R. Brout and F. Englert, and with G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble — proposed the mechanism that suggested the particle, as early as 1964. And it took a team of 6,000 people, working as the Atlas Collaboration and the CMS Collaboration, at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, to prove them right. Do we then give the six of them or the 6005 of them?
Teamwork
This is not just with the Boson experiment. Many other such grand ideas are done as teamwork. Today’s science has moved from that of a scientist ploughing the lone furrow, into a group, team or consortium of collaborators. The Human Genome project is an excellent example. But then, as a scientist commented on the Scientific American editorial, perhaps awarding organisations, not just individuals, might be an option to consider (which in turn raises its own debate), just as in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Discipline categorisation is another issue that is being debated. During the last 12 years, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry has gone only in four years to ‘card-carrying’ chemists, the rest eight have gone to molecular biologists, structural biologists and biophysicists, and several chemists have wondered about this.
Then again, last year’s prize went to Dr. Schechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals, a topic that could have been just as well included in physics. But, the 2010 Prize for discovering and identifying an allotropic form of the chemical element, graphene, was in physics, not chemistry! This brings the other issue of merging of disciplines blurring of boundaries and the birth of new disciplines. The charm in graphene lies less in its chemistry but far more in its use as a material — and in the new fusion-discipline material science.
Then again, the Nobel people started to award in soft-science areas such as economics. This has made one ask whether there should not be Nobels in time-honoured areas such as biology (as distinct from chemistry) and mathematics.
Other awards
Granted there are other agencies that award much coveted prizes such as the Fields and Abel Prizes in mathematics, Dan David prizes (which are three annual prizes of US$ 1 million each for achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world), and the Lasker awards in medicine. Indeed, more often than not, a Lasker awardee ends up getting the Nobel as well; Drs. John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka who got the Nobel this year in medicine won the Lasker in 2009 (and Martin Evans won the Lasker in 2001, and the Nobel in 2007). But the esteem that the Nobel has earned over the last century still is its trump card, which is why there is much discussion about its various facets.

That spark of innovation



: Varsshini R. demonstrates her device which generates electricity using mechanical pressure, in Bangalore on Friday. Also seen are Mount Litera Zee School principal Sandhya Sriraman and BrainCafe Karnataka head Sunil N. Photo: K. Gopinathan 
 
The Hindu : Varsshini R. demonstrates her device which generates electricity using mechanical pressure, in Bangalore on Friday. Also seen are Mount Litera Zee School principal Sandhya Sriraman and BrainCafe Karnataka head Sunil N. Photo: K. Gopinathan
State-level BrainCafe Budding Scientist Contest today
A small spark of a gas stove lighter that her mother used every day was enough for Varsshini R., a Class 6 student at Mount Litera Zee School in Hosur, to create an innovative device that generates electricity using mechanical pressure.
Her new device, made out of a small wooden plank, LEDs and piezoelectric material, was demonstrated at a press conference here on Friday under the aegis of BrainCafe, an activity-based learning programme for schools which is a joint venture of Zee Learn Ltd. and Gakken Educational Co.
How it works
Demonstrating the device, she said it works on the principle that electricity is generated from the electrons released by piezoelectric material when any pressure is placed on it. As it was a cost-effective way of producing electricity, the idea was applicable at public places such as staircases, footpaths and roads, the 11-year-old said.
“My aim is to become a scientist in the future,” the budding scientist added.
Sandhya Sriraman, school principal, said they were implementing the idea in their school to generate their own electricity.
Varsshini’s invention has also made its way to State-level BrainCafe Budding Scientist Contest 2012, which will be held on Saturday at the Insight Academy, 20, Mango Garden Layout, Konanakunte, here.
Forty young scientists from Bijapur, Hosur, Mandya, Mysore, Davangere, Gadag and Shimoga will participate in the event.
The national event, which will be held in November in Mumbai, will see participation from 9,000 students.

Call to assess safety of nano particles


R. Muralidharan (second right), Director, Solid State Physics Laboratory, and Pradeep Haldar, professor, College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University At Albany, State University of New York, at a seminar on organised by the PSG Institute of Advanced Studies in Coimbatore on Monday. R.Rudramoorthy (second left), principal, PSG College of Technology and
Magnus Bergkvist, Assistant Professor of Nano-bioscience, University at
Albany, are in the picture. Photo: K. Ananthan 
 
The Hindu R. Muralidharan (second right), Director, Solid State Physics Laboratory, and Pradeep Haldar, professor, College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University At Albany, State University of New York, at a seminar on organised by the PSG Institute of Advanced Studies in Coimbatore on Monday. R.Rudramoorthy (second left), principal, PSG College of Technology and Magnus Bergkvist, Assistant Professor of Nano-bioscience, University at Albany, are in the picture. Photo: K. Ananthan
Although there is not enough evidence to state that nano particles are per se toxic, it is necessary for scientists to bring to the table all advantages and disadvantages so that it does not face the same debate that Genetically Modified crops and products are facing, R. Muralidharan, Director of Solid State Physics Laboratory, Defence Research and Development Organisation, said in Coimbatore on Monday.
Inaugurating a two-day seminar on ‘Nanotechnology for Energy, Environment and Health’, organised jointly by the PSG Institute of Advanced Studies and University at Albany State University of New York, the U.S., he said that if in the race to claim industrial funding and to reap commercial advantages, the flipside was swept under the carpet, society would view the scientists with suspicion.
“Nano technology is being thought of as a messiah for challenges that humanity is facing. There are various debates and discussions on whether nano technology is a hype or hope. The best way to view it is as a technology platform that can be used to increase the efficiency of the present technology and not as an independent entity,” Mr. Muralidharan said.
Assuming that nano technology would become a viable production level technology, it was essential to asses the challenges it brought with it. It was known that particles could penetrate the skin and cross the olfactory system to spread to the brain and also enter the bloodstream. Though this may not necessarily pose a health risk, it needed to be thoroughly investigated, he urged.
R. Rudramoorthy, principal of PSG College of Technology, spoke on the possible uses of nano technology in augmenting alternative sources of energy for electricity generation that could address power problems arising out of use of conventional sources.
The seminar would deliberate upon the latest advancements and challenges in the development of multifunctional nano-materials and their applications in areas such as energy, smart textiles, printed electronics, environment and health.
Professors Pradeep Halder, Makoto Hirayama and Magnus Bergkvist from the University at Albany, State University of New York, the U.S., delivered special lectures.

Lightest planet found in nearest star system to Earth



A new exoplanet about the mass of the Earth has been found. 
 
AP A new exoplanet about the mass of the Earth has been found.
Astronomers have discovered a new intriguing exoplanet about the mass of the Earth, orbiting a star in the Alpha Centauri star system - the nearest to our planet.
It is also the lightest exoplanet ever found around a star like the Sun. The planet was detected using the HARPS instrument on the 3.6 - metre telescope at ESO’s La Silla Observatory in Chile.
Alpha Centauri is one of the brightest stars in the southern skies and is the nearest stellar system to our Solar System - only 4.3 light - years away.
It is actually a triple star - a system consisting of two stars similar to the Sun orbiting close to each other, designated Alpha Centauri A and B, and a more distant and faint red component known as Proxima Centauri.
“Our observations extended over more than four years using the HARPS instrument and have revealed a tiny, but real, signal from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B every 3.2 days,” says Xavier Dumusque, lead author of the paper.
“It’s an extraordinary discovery and it has pushed our technique to the limit!” Dumusque said. The European team detected the planet by picking up the tiny wobbles in the motion of the star Alpha Centauri B created by the gravitational pull of the orbiting planet.
Alpha Centauri B is very similar to the Sun but slightly smaller and less bright. The newly discovered planet, with a mass of a little more than that of the Earth, is orbiting about six million kilometres away from the star.
The first exoplanet around a Sun—like star was found by the same team back in 1995 and since then there have been more than 800 confirmed discoveries, but most are much bigger than the Earth, and many are as big as Jupiter.
“This is the first planet with a mass similar to Earth ever found around a star like the Sun. Its orbit is very close to its star and it must be much too hot for life as we know it,” said Stephane Udry, a co-author of the paper.
“But it may well be just one planet in a system of several. Our other HARPS results, and new findings from Kepler, both show clearly that the majority of low—mass planets are found in such systems,” Udry said in a statement.
“This result represents a major step towards the detection of a twin Earth in the immediate vicinity of the Sun. We live in exciting times!” concludes Dumusque.
The results are published in the journal Nature.

Efficient way to turn waste into resource

  
Nisargruna biogas plant at Auro Textiles belonging to Vardhman Group that came up in 2010 in Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. Photo: Special Arrangement 
 
The Hindu Nisargruna biogas plant at Auro Textiles belonging to Vardhman Group that came up in 2010 in Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. Photo: Special Arrangement
Nisargruna biogas plants can produce 25-30 kg of methane and 50-60 kg of organic manure from one tonne of biodegradable waste
A staggering amount of waste is generated every day in every town and city, and the local bodies are grappling with logistics for its disposal. The problem arises as the government and individuals fail to see waste as a potential source of energy and agricultural input in the form of manure.
The Bangalore Corporation, which recently made waste segregation mandatory at the household level, is showing the way for the rest of India. It is setting up 12 Nisargruna biogas plants across the city to convert biodegradable waste into methane and organic manure.
The Nisargruna biogas plant is based on technology developed by the Mumbai-based Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).
Such plants are being constructed at local levels too. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is planning to construct 4 tonnes a day capacity biodegradable waste conversion plant at its sprawling centre at Siruseri IT Park near Chennai. It already has similar plants operating at other locations. IIT Madras has already cleared a project for a plant with 1 tonne per day capacity. The Chennai Corporation recently initiated preliminary discussion with BARC.
These are not the first plants coming up in the country. “Such plants have already been installed at 146 locations,” says Dr. S. P. Kale, Head of Technology Transfer & Collaboration Division at BARC. “We have transferred the technology to 100 private entrepreneurs.”
In a broad sense, the principle is similar to that of gobar gas plants, but all comparisons end there — the technology is much more advanced and more methane is produced.
Better bet
“Conventional gobar gas plants have a single digester and produce biogas containing 55-65 per cent of methane and 45-35 per cent of carbon dioxide. But the Nisargruna plants are biphasic (aerobic followed by anaerobic phase) and produce biogas containing 70-80 per cent of methane and only 30-20 per cent of carbon dioxide,” he says.
More the methane produced, the better is the fuel value. One tonne of biodegradable waste contains only 22-24 per cent of solid matter; the rest is water. And 30 per cent of municipal waste is biodegradable waste. So with one tonne of biodegradable waste (containing 220-240 kg of solid material) it will be possible to produce 25-30 kg of methane, about 150 kg of carbon dioxide and 50-60 kg of organic manure.
The methane enriched biogas can be used directly for heating (instead of LPG) or for generating electricity. Dr. Kale underlines the higher levels of efficiency when it is used directly for heating and strongly recommends it.
Best usage
“One metre cube of biogas has 3,500 kilo calories of heat. When this is used directly, and the efficiency of the heater is 70 per cent, about 2,400 Kcal are effectively used. But one metre cube of biogas can produce only 1.5 to 1.8 units of electricity, accounting only for 1,200 to 1,400 Kcal,” he says. “It is two times more efficient to use methane for heating than for generating electricity. It may be used for electricity generation only where thermal use is not possible.”
Constructing a one tonne waste plant will cost Rs.15 lakh and it can be installed in two months. “If a plant runs at full efficiency and if you claim carbon credit, the payback period is two years,” Dr. Kale explains.
Hazardous waste
The best part of the technology is its ability to generate resource even from hazardous biological sludge. Waste from textile, food and chemical plants contain harmful chemicals. When the waste is treated, the biological sludge too turns hazardous as organisms absorb harmful chemicals.
“The volume of hazardous solids can be reduced by 90 per cent,” he stresses. “There are seven such plants already in operation.” The first to come up was in 2010 in Baddi in Himachal Pradesh at Auro Textiles belonging to the Vardhman Group.
He rattles off the details of one plant after another, and it becomes difficult to understand why this technology has not been adopted in a much bigger way across the country. “The concept of processing biodegradable waste is more talked about but urban local bodies are not keen to do it. Nisargruna technology offers a decentralized way of reducing the waste reaching dumping yards,” he says. “The citizens on their part must segregate the waste resources and urban local bodies must make provision to collect these waste resources in a segregated manner. It needs a huge change in perception by the society.”
So what makes Nisargruna biogas plants so very efficient? To start with, unlike a gobar gas plant, the Nisargruna plant has two digesters — aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic digester has nine species of Bacillus required for breaking down waste resources.
The waste is first pulverised in a mixer before it enters the aerobic digester, where it remains for 3 to 4 days. “The smaller clumps tend to aggregate to form lumps [despite pulverisation]. These lumps of waste are attacked by aerobic bacteria. Air and hot water (using solar panels) at 70 degree C are added. “Hot water is added to accelerate the digestion process,” Dr. Kale notes.
Though the temperature of the waste after adding hot water is 32 degree C to 35 degree C in winter and 42 degree C to 44 degree C in summer, the bacteria survive as they are thermophilic. “They can function in mesophilic condition as well,” he clarifies.
The pulverised water-mixed waste is passed through many compartments so that the bacteria have a better chance to degrade it. What flows out of the aerobic digester to anaerobic digester is almost liquefied homogenous slurry with a reduced pH of 5-5.5. The solid content in the slurry has been reduced from 23 per cent to 10 per cent. “The solid is converted into organic acids and carbon dioxide,” Dr. Kale explains.
Methane bacteria are predominant in the anaerobic digester. As a rule, methane bacteria are slow in their actions, and hence it takes about 15 days for the waste to be degraded in the anaerobic digester.
“But it has been reduced from 40 days [in the case of gobar gas] to 19 days,” he points out. “This is due to the initial aerobic phase.”
All that is left of the waste is methane, carbon dioxide and manure — a rich resource extracted from it.