Quantcast
Channel: Popular Science | RSS
Viewing all 20161 articles
Browse latest View live

Why Doesn't The iPhone 5S Have NFC?

$
0
0
iPhone 5S
Apple

Apple calls the newest flagship iPhone, the iPhone 5S, "the most forward-thinking iPhone yet." Sounds great! We love looking forward. But the iPhone, unlike its chief competitors in the Android world, can't handle tap-to-pair with speakers or accessories. When the U.S. finally catches up to Japan and South Korea and makes tap-to-pay with your phone, or tap-to-swipe your subway "card" ubiquitous, the iPhone 5S won't be able to do any of that fun stuff. How is Apple thinking forward if it's ignoring one of the most widespread up-and-coming future technologies?

The caveat, right up front: NFC is not spectacularly useful right here and right now. It's a feature that comes in just about every Android and Windows Phone, but isn't advertised in most of them; it's just one more sensor in a device crammed full of sensors that most consumers neither understand nor, frankly, need to understand.

But! It's also a very cool thing, and it's going to take off sooner or later, and those phones will be prepared for this future. The iPhone 5S will not. To really fulfill its potential, we're going to need a lot of infrastructure changes, which cost a lot of money. Every subway entry is going to need an update to support NFC. Every point-of-sale device in every store and every ATM is going to need that same update. Every store that has a buy 10, get one free customer loyalty card is going to have to convert that to digital. Every credit card company is going to have to get together and agree on the way this is going to be done. Individual state governments will have to do the same for driver's licenses and IDs. Same with the federal government and passports.

But none of that is completely out of reach; it's been done in other countries, and it's on its way here, in some fashion. Mobile payment systems like Square have caught on; dealing with money and identity through our phones is not something that inherently terrifies us. We can do it.

Samsung TecTile Sticker
Dan Nosowitz

And there are actually a whole bunch of cool things you can do right now with NFC! I really love the Samsung TecTile stickers, which you can tap with your phone to trigger all kinds of things. Stick one on your bedside table, and when you lay the phone down there at night, it'll switch on your alarm but turn other modes to silent, keep your phone on lower power usage, text your significant other, turn Wi-Fi on and off, or all kinds of other things. NFC speakers, like these Nokia-branded ones from JBL, let you pair without dicking around in your settings. Just tap your phone on the speaker and bam, it turns your Bluetooth on and automatically connects you do the speaker. Very easy, very cool.

Apple likely didn't include NFC in the iPhone 5S because Apple nominally likes to present itself as a minimalist tech company, not including things that don't add significantly to the experience of using the device. (That's why iPhones don't have styluses like the Samsung Galaxy Note, gesture control like the Samsung Galaxy S, or optional software overlays like the HTC One.) And that's good! We support that attitude. But Apple also, as the company with the most promotional power in the entire industry, has the ability to singlehandedly change things. If Apple had included NFC in the iPhone 5S, and really pushed it, who knows what could change? Maybe an explosion of new gadgets. Maybe pressure for stores to update their point-of-sale devices to support this cool new iPhone. Apple has that power, and we sort of wish they'd exercised it.


Microsoft Announces The Next Generation Of Surface Tablet

$
0
0
Microsoft Surface 2's New Screen
Dan Nosowitz

The Surface, released last winter, was the very first Microsoft-branded laptop, and an odd duck it was, too. A hard, seemingly Blade Runner-inspired chunk of metal, the Surface is a tablet that runs Windows, with a magnetic keyboard that clips onto the bottom of the screen with a satisfying "chnk." We found the first model promising, but flawed, which is why we were so interested in the followup. And that followup, the Surface 2, was just announced today, here in New York.

The Surface line now includes three models: the Surface RT (which isn't actually a new device; the price has been cut, but it's the same Surface RT that was released last year), the Surface 2, and the Surface 2 Pro. All three have that same tablet-with-clipped-keyboard form factor, but vary in both hardware and software. The Surface RT is unchanged from last year, except in price. The "RT" in the name refers to the fact that this model doesn't run a full version of Windows. Instead, it works more like an iPad or Android tablet, relying on apps from an app store and using an operating system called Windows RT that looks sort of like, but is not, Windows 8. You can't run Photoshop on the RT, unless Adobe releases an RT-optimized Photoshop app. It's also fairly low-powered, but it costs $349, so it's hard to get too grumpy about that.

Microsoft Surface 2 With Keyboard Cover
Dan Nosowitz

The Surface 2 is actually the sequel to the Surface RT, to be sold alongside. It too uses Windows RT, so you're stuck with the Windows RT app store. Microsoft, for its part, says it's rapidly expanding the app selection for the RT tablets. The main difference between the Surface 2 and the Surface RT? The screen. The new Surface 2 has a 1920x1080 screen, which on its small 10.6-inch display means you'll be looking at a super sharp picture. It also includes a faster Tegra 4 processor, faster USB 3.0 for quicker external devices like hard drives and cameras, and will be available in both 32GB and 64GB storage capacities, starting at $449. (The Surface RT will only be available in 32GB.) Oh, also, the Surface 2 will be available in silver. It looks pretty cool.

The Surface Pro 2 is where things really start to get interesting. Of the three Surfaces, it's the only one to run a full operating system--Windows 8, just like the Lenovo Yoga 13, our favorite early Windows 8 laptop. And, as Microsoft repeatedly stated, it's a very powerful laptop, too: it's using the newest Intel chips, which are called "Haswell," and Microsoft says it's got 50 percent more graphical ability than its predecessor, the Surface Pro. It's got 64GB, 128GB, 256GB, or 512GB of storage, and either 4GB or 8GB of memory. It'll start at $899, a touch cheaper than its chief rival, the Apple Macbook Air.

There are some interesting accessories to go along with the Surface 2 and 2 Pro; it's inherently a more flexible platform, considering that it's essentially just a screen. Microsoft has improved the two versions of keyboard cover from the first generation. A keyboard cover is a sort of separate keyboard that clips into the bottom of a tablet, and then folds up to cover the screen when not in use. Microsoft's are very advanced; there are two main models and both are unusual. There's the Touch cover, which is just touch- and pressure-sensitive fabric, so it feels like you're typing on a carpet; and there's the Type cover, an excellent and very slim keyboard. The Touch cover is now much more sensitive, with an upgrade from 80 sensors to over a thousand. The Type cover is now even slimmer, and Microsoft claims it's silent.

But Microsoft has also opened things up to odder and more specific modular accessories. We saw the Surface Remix cover, which is a pressure-sensitive array for budding DJs, as well as a version of the Type cover with a built-in battery that extends the original Surface Pro's battery life by two and a half times.

Oh, and there are some nice cloud-based updates as well; when you buy either a Surface 2 or Surface 2 Pro, you'll get 200GB of cloud storage through Microsoft's SkyDrive service. Plus, you'll get a year's worth of premium Skype service, meaning free international calls and access to the many Skype Wi-Fi hotspots littered around the world. Finally, something comes of that Microsoft purchase of Skype!

Pre-orders start tomorrow, and the new Surfaces officially go on sale on October 22nd.

7 Fantastic Vintage Anatomy Drawings

$
0
0
Bone illustration
By William Cheselden. Hosted online by the National Library of Medicine.
View Photo Gallery

Medicine in the Middle Ages wasn't the greatest: the leeches, the dirt, that whole four-humors thing. And yet physicians from all over the world made heroic efforts to develop and share their knowledge. Here, we've gathered some of our favorite historical anatomical drawings, which medieval and early modern doctors made from dissections of both animals and human cadavers. The drawings show amusing inaccuracies, impressive detail, and the apparently universal drive to give anatomical drawings weird facial expressions.

PHOTO GALLERY:

Click here to enter the gallery

Valve Just Announced Its Own Operating System

$
0
0
SteamOS
Valve Corporation

Valve, the gaming company behind titles like Portal and Half-Life, plus the massively popular online gaming store Steam (sort of the iTunes of downloadable games), has just announced a new operating system: SteamOS. Instead of the PC-based Steam service, it's a program designed for gaming in the living room--sit on your couch, in front of your TV, and enjoy your games there.

"SteamOS combines the rock-solid architecture of Linux with a gaming experience built for the big screen. It will be available soon as a free stand-alone operating system for living room machines," Valve wrote on a site made for the announcement. (There are two more announcements coming this week, too.) The announcement's short on details, but here's the likely translation: the Linux-based OS will be potentially available for any gaming device you connect to your TV, although we don't know exactly which devices will decide to use/offer it.

A streaming function in the OS will also allow Steam users to send their PC or Mac games over Wi-Fi directly to their TV. "Hundreds" of games are coming that were designed specifically for the system, while all of Steam's 3,000-ish games will be available through the streaming service. (The OS will also be able to play music, TV, and movies. But that's even more vague: Valve only says they're "working with many of the media services you know and love.")

Last week we predicted that Valve would announce a game console running on Steam, and that's still entirely possible. Heck, with the operating system in place, it's even more likely now. The Valve announcement site had a countdown to this afternoon, and now the clock's been reset to what's presumably Valve's next announcement, at 1 p.m. EST Wednesday.

FYI: Why Do I Poop More When I Have My Period?

$
0
0
Breakaway
This graphic shows the differing thicknesses in the uterine lining throughout one normal menstrual cycle.
NIH

The answer is prostaglandins. These are the chemical signals girls' and women's bodies make and send to the uterus to tell it to contract, thus expelling the uterine lining at the end of the menstrual cycle. Prostaglandins aren't super picky about whom they talk to, however. If the body sends enough of them to the uterus, some stray prostaglandins will make it over to the bowel, which is located nearby. There, they also tell the bowel to contract, thus expelling… you know.

Not all women experience more frequent bowel movements when they have their periods. Some girls feel the effects of prostaglandin on their bowels as nausea. Others actually get diarrhea. Still others are not so bothered at all.
Some women's bodies are just overzealous in their prostaglandin production.

Incidentally, those who get painful cramps can blame high levels of prostaglandins. Some women's bodies are just overzealous in their prostaglandin production. This makes the uterus contract more strongly. During especially strong contractions, the blood supply to the uterus gets cut off, causing pain.

Another reason some women poop more during their periods is because their progesterone levels fall. Progesterone is a hormone whose levels cycle with the menstrual cycle. Normally, at the middle of her cycle, a woman's progesterone levels are high. Just before her period, however, the levels drop suddenly, which helps kick off the period. Progesterone is naturally a bit constipating, too, so its sudden decline can make you feel like you really gotta go.

If a woman uses hormonal birth control—one in five women of childbearing age in the U.S. do—then her hormone and chemical levels are a bit different. Hormonal birth control often reduces how much prostaglandin the body makes, which is why it reduces painful cramps. That also means the prostaglandins aren't at work making women poop.

Nevertheless, a woman taking birth control may still feel some gastrointestinal effects just before her "period." Many birth control pills have a series of placebo pills that don't have any hormones in them, which patients are supposed to take once a cycle. Most modern birth control pills have some kind of synthetic progesterone in them. So when patients take their placebo pills, their progesterone levels fall suddenly and… voilà.

Popular Science thanks Kathryn Clancy, an anthropologist who studies menstruation at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, for her guidance in answering this question.

Have a burning science question you'd like to see answered in our FYI section? Email it to fyi@popsci.com.

Inside The Most Ambitious Ground Telescope Ever Built

$
0
0
On the move
Transporting the ALMA observatory's 100-ton antenna dishes requires a truck with two 700-hp engines.
ESO/S. Stanghellini

The first scientist I meet at the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) telescope site is wearing a portable oxygen tank. At 16,400 feet in the Andes, he'd be unable to think clearly without the tube up his nose. He runs the observatory's brain—a supercomputer as powerful as three million laptops working together that compares light from the telescope's 66 dishes quadrillions of times every second. Everything about this place is designed for high-altitude survival. The curved roof can withstand 145mph winds. Heated blankets prevent the toilet cistern from freezing. The dishes themselves point to the sky with 0.6-arc-second accuracy, despite the winds and radical temperature swings. It's the people that are the weak link. Workers are allowed to spend only six hours a day at the ALMA "high site," the scientist explains. As I write that down, I realize I'm feeling dizzy.

A few minutes later, flat on a cot under an oxygen mask to avoid fainting, I look out the medical room's window at the lifeless, Mars-like landscape. The silvery radio dishes are engaged in a quiet ballet, swinging above the red dirt in perfect unison. Their synchrony and precision are two of the reasons ALMA is the most ambitious ground telescope ever built. Another is the observatory's unparalleled adaptability; it has the most dishes that can be trucked around to different locations. Because of all these special features, ALMA will produce images 10 times sharper than the Hubble Space Telescope does.

192 Dish Locations
High in the Atacama Desert in Chile, 192 cement bases sit wired to a supercomputer, each ready to be hooked up to one of 66 radio dishes. The combinations give the ALMA observatory unprecedented flexibility: Astro­nomers can cluster the dishes for a broad view or place them as far as 10 miles apart to focus on details.
Unearthed Outdoors
Telescopes have always had one major problem: the Earth's atmosphere bends light, distorting images. That's why telescopes are often built at high altitudes, where the atmosphere is thinner, and why NASA put Hubble in space—to get beyond the atmosphere entirely. But space scopes aren't perfect. They're a compromise by definition. They must be big enough to capture faint light but small enough to fit on a rocket, and repairs or upgrades either require exceptionally expensive trips into orbit or are simply impossible. Now, however, increasingly sophisticated adaptive optics that adjust for the atmosphere's blurring effect are making many telescopes on Earth as good as anything that we could put in the sky. ALMA captures radio waves, and soon workers will break ground on two observatories that see visible light instead: the Thirty Meter Telescope, with a resolution more than 10 times as high as Hubble's, and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which will photograph the entire sky every few nights.

ALMA's 66 antenna dishes work as one massive telescope, which can see sharp detail or broad features by changing its aperture from 500 feet to 10 miles. To achieve this flexibility, workers use massive trucks, each with 28 tires, to transport the 100-ton dishes. Each antenna is placed (to a fraction of a millimeter of accuracy) at one of 192 bases that have a hard line to the supercomputer nearby.

ALMA will watch a gas cloud
spiral into the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.
By the end of the year, when all of its dishes are online, ALMA will have 100 times the imaging resolution of any scope looking at very short radio waves, which emanate from cool, dark sources such as interstellar dust and from bright, distant galaxies. But it's already had some impressive finds. In March, astronomers discovered surprising numbers of "starburst" galaxies, where new stars were forming a billion years earlier than anyone thought. This summer, they might have found evidence of dust traps near stars that help the formation of planets, asteroids, and comets. And eventually, ALMA will watch a gas cloud spiral into the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, look for molecular signs of life on faraway worlds, and measure the location and density of the mysterious substance scientists call dark matter—all from a high desert on planet Earth.

This article originally appeared in the September 2013 issue of Popular Science.

5 Awesome Photos Of Wild Animals In Action

$
0
0
Slowest Sprinter

Winner, Deep and Meaningful category

Vaclav Krpelik/ZSL

Can the world ever have too many beautifully composed photographs of wildlife? Only correct answer: never ever. So without further ado, here are the winning images from the Zoological Society of London's second annual Animal Photography Prize.

Costa Rican ants carry a piece of leaf homeward:

A Giant Trophy for a Small Ant

Winner, Size Matters category

Bence Mate/ZSL

An adorable panda munches on bamboo:

Tranquillity

Highly commended, Last Chance To See category

Tom Mayor/ZSL

A heron takes an island beach break in the Maldives:

Sunbathing Heron

Highly commended, The Perfect Moment category, junior

Emma Collins/ZSL

A florescent-looking gecko peeks up from a papaya:

Greedy Green Gecko

Highly commended, Weird and Wonderful category

Jeremy Cusack/ZSL

The winning photographs will be displayed at the London zoo until the end of the year. More information about the exhibit and competition can be found here.

[New Scientist]

Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments

$
0
0

Wellcome Images

Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off.

It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishingour ability to do the latter.

That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters. Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla. We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters.

But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments ("If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you're an idiot" ) or civil comments. The results, as Brossard and coauthor Dietram A. Scheufele wrote in a New York Times op-ed:

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.
In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.
Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

Another, similarly designed study found that just firmly worded (but not uncivil) disagreements between commenters impacted readers' perception of science.

If you carry out those results to their logical end--commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded--you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the "off" switch.

Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story.

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

There are plenty of other ways to talk back to us, and to each other: through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, livechats, email, and more. We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. Don't do it for us. Do it for science.

Suzanne LaBarre is the online content director of Popular Science. Email suzanne.labarre at popsci dot com.


10 Of The Most Amazing Textiles Of The Future

$
0
0

BioSuit
Dava Newman
View Photo Gallery

Textile design is one of those fields that seems like it never changes all that much. Wallpaper is wallpaper. A rug is a rug. Right?

Wrong. A new crop of tech-minded designers is adding futuristic spins on everything from carpets to clothes and more. The book Textile Visionaries: Innovation and Sustainability in Textile Design (Laurence King, 2013) rounds up some of today's most innovative projects, including textiles that can detect heat in humans, change colors in response to electrical currents, and light up in the presence of a threat.

Some of the designs might be too weird to ever go mainstream--does anyone really want to wear a dress that looks like a shattered vase?--but the takeaway is clear: The textiles of tomorrow won't just passively pretty up our environment; they'll actively help shape it. Here's a gallery of our 10 favorite projects.

FYI: Do Insects Have Personalities?

$
0
0

Hi, shy guy
Daniel Cooper/Getty Images

For the entomophiles who keep insects as pets, this question will seem a little silly. Some bugs appear aggressive, and others, shy; some venture into the open, others hide by the wall. But beyond casual observation, researchers are still learning the dimensions of an insect's personality and how individuals of the same species might differ in temperament.

Last year, a group based at the University of Illinois looked at "novelty-seeking" tendencies in honeybees. The scientists found that bees that routinely searched for new nest sites also had a very strong tendency to scout for food. That suggests particular individuals are programmed in such a way, whether through genetic or other factors, that they manifest wanderlust and an inclination to explore.

"Most people think that insects are very similar and behave in the same ways," says Enikő Gyuris, a biologist at the University of Debrecen in Hungary, but she has found differently. In her studies of fire bugs, Gyuris uses a battery of behavioral tests to measure three distinct personality traits: boldness, activity, and "explorativeness." In a recent study, she put each bug into an open vial and then placed it at the center of a two-foot-wide circular arena. The boldest bugs emerged quickly, while the timid ones hid for 10 minutes. Once the bugs left the vial, their tendency to move in different directions and investigate new objects served as an index of their explorativeness. "Our results show that there are personality differences between the individuals of the fire bug," Gyuris wrote, "as we found that they behave consistently over time."

Have a burning science question you'd like to see answered in our FYI section? Email it to fyi@popsci.com.

This article originally appeared in the September 2013 issue of Popular Science.

How To Become Indiana Jones With Online Courses [Infographic]

$
0
0

The first massive open online course, or MOOC, launched in September 2008 at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. Via the Web, anyone could attend the class on learning theory, and 2,300 people signed up. MOOCs quickly took off. In 2011, a Stanford University class on artificial intelligence enrolled 160,000, inspiring one of the instructors to found the MOOC start-up Udacity.

The courses aren't quite substitutes for traditional education; at Coursera, one of the largest MOOC providers, 80 percent of students already hold a bachelor's degree, and only 10 percent finish the courses they start, according to co-founder Andrew Ng. But MOOCs can help students build the skills to become almost anything—or anybody.

How to read this infographic: The clusters represent the number of courses available through early 2014 at nine of the largest MOOC providers. Every course appears as a dot. The clusters for iTunes U and Udemy—where educators create their own classes—include only their most popular courses.

Infographic by Beutler Ink

This article originally appeared in the September 2013 issue of Popular Science.

Big Pic: Blue Ripples In Martian Sand Dunes

$
0
0

Mars Dunes
NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

The red planet's looking a little blue in the face. This image taken by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter at the end of August shows the ripples of wind-blown sediment on the dunes of Noctis Labyrinthus (the "labyrinth of the night") near the Martian equivalent of the Grand Canyon. The pretty blue color comes from the heavy dose of iron in the sand, which has been ground down over the years from volcanic rock.

[NASA]

Famous Twitter Spambot Horse_ebooks Is Actually A BuzzFeeᴅ Employee

$
0
0

Horse Ebooks

On Twitter, there is an account by the name of @Horse_ebooks. It is perhaps the most famous nonsense account on the entire social network, spewing out non-sequiturs and bits of stuttering oddness like "As you might know, I am a full-time Internet" and "Who Else Wants To Become A Golf Ball." Originally, it appeared to be a spam account, designed to sell computer-generated ebooks about horses by tweeting excerpts from them. These were often funny and weird, and the account quickly gained a following among the sort of internet users who like weird funny things. The two most definitive articles about Horse_ebooks, from John Herrman, writing for Splitsider, and Adrian Chen at Gawker, both note that something a little odd happened to the account on September 14th, 2011. And now we found out what that was.

On September 14th, Horse_ebooks began tweeting "via web," meaning the tweets were entered at Twitter.com, rather than "via horse ebooks," a custom client that was used up until that point. The tweets also started getting more predictably funny; Horse_ebooks had previously tweeted an awful lot of nonsense, with some gems buried within, but after September 14th the funny tweets seemed to flow more often. And thanks to, of all people and of all places, Susan Orlean at the New Yorker, we know what it was. Somehow, two New-York-based jokers, Jacob Bakkila and Thomas Bender, managed to wrest control of @Horse_ebooks away from the Russian spammer who birthed it, and began running the account as a sort of conceptual art project.

Bakkila is an employee at BuzzFeeᴅ, working in creative (the advertising/business side of things), and among those who follow such things, is best known for the now-defunct (and very funny) Twitter account @agentlebrees. Bender has long been rumored to be associated with PronunciationBook, another oddball "weird internet" account that simply reads aloud numbers in brief YouTube videos. In a brief post at the New Yorker, veteran staff writer Susan Orlean--yeah, that Susan Orlean--revealed that Bakkila and Bender were behind the two projects, and that they would be participating in a performance art installation involving both Horse_ebooks and PronunciationBook today at a gallery in New York's Lower East Side. 

At the gallery, Bakkila, Bender, and Orlean sit at a desk answering phone calls. The phone number was posted on @Horse_ebooks this morning. When called, Bakkila, Bender, or Orlean will answer the phone and read an excerpt from the accounts.

I've been told that a full-length profile is forthcoming in the New Yorker, explaining just what the hell is going on here.

The Mind-Bending Science Of James Turrell's Art

$
0
0

James Turrell, Aten Reign, 2013

Daylight and LED light, dimensions variable. © James Turrell Installation view: James Turrell, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, June 21–September 25, 2013

David Heald © Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York

 

This has been the summer of James Turrell. In and out of the art world, everyone's talking about the artist, whose simultaneous exhibitions at the Guggenheim in New York City, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston and now, even a shopping center in Las Vegas have stretched his disorienting, mesmerizing explorations of light and space from coast to coast.

Best known for his still-under-construction, behemoth naked-eye observatory in an extinct volcano in the Arizona desert, Turrell has transformed the Guggenheim's famous rotunda from an open atrium into a giant orb of glowing color for the summer. Many visitors will lay stretched out on the museum floor for minutes or even hours underneath it, patiently staring up like it's some sort of celestial event.

Part of what makes Turrell's work so salient is that, on a basic level, he's playing with the science of how we perceive the world, using his knowledge of our retinal structure and visual system to upend what we think "seeing" really means. Since his days as an undergraduate psychology major, he's been carefully exploring and manipulating the ways people's eyes and brains process light and space, reminding us that at a fundamental level, everything we see is illusion.

His work draws on a background of psychology and mathematics that's somewhat unusual in the art world. "[M]ore than most artists he considers the boundaries between science and art," as Guggenheim co-curator Nat Trotman writes in his exhibit's catalog.

Turrell studied perceptual psychology at Pomona College in the 1960s, and later, in pursuit of a master's degree in art, started experimenting with how beams of light can transform depth perception, appearing to occupy three-dimensional space in a room. He fascinated with what he calls the "thing-ness" of light, the idea that light isn't just a way to illuminate objects, but an object itself.

Early in his career, he also began to play with what's known as the Ganzfeld effect, ("whole field" in German), a disorienting perceptual experiment that consists of filling the entire field of vision with a solid, undifferentiated color. Without any contrast to occupy the brain, it becomes like sensory deprivation, and visual blackouts and hallucinations can sometimes occur.

 

Ganzfeld Effect
Bridget's Bardo, 2009, Installation view at Kunstmuseum Wolfburg, Germany, 2009 © James Turrell
Florian Holzherr via LACMA

 

"Turrell's work tricks the brain," explains Benjamin Backus, an associate professor at the Graduate Center for Vision Research at the SUNY College of Optometry. Rather than playing with the way the eye itself works, as many optical illusions do, his art often exploits the way our mind processes an image.

 

Dichotomous Perceptual Decisions

 

One of Turrell's favorite visual tricks is the result of something called a dichotomous perceptual decision.The phenomenon is perhaps best explained through one of Turrell's early pieces, Afrum I (White), on display at the Guggenheim now. A very bright, even light in the corner of an otherwise completely dark room gives the appearance of a floating, three dimensional cube popping out of the wall. Your vision intermittently shifts between perceiving the light as a solid cube and a flat beam of light, because your brain could technically see the image either way.

 

James Turrell, Afrum I (White), 1967

Projected light, dimensions variable. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, Panza Collection, Gift 92.4175. © James Turrell Installation view: Singular Forms (sometimes repeated), Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, March 5–May 19, 2004

David Heald © Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York

 

The light projects from a corner of the room near the ceiling, casting a particular shape on the opposite side of the room, according to Backus. "When it hits the wall, it's kind of a butterfly shape," a hexagon of illumination with its top and bottom points nestled directly in the corner of the room. To put it a little differently, each of the two walls has a trapezoid of light, with the longer common edge between the two shapes aligned with the corner.

The brain tries to interpret that longer edge in the center as being closer, even though it's a light on a concave corner of a room, creating a dichotomous perceptual decision. Your brain is able to perceive it as either one thing or the other, and it can't decide between the two. Sometimes it seems like a concave corner, while other times the light seems to be a solid coming out of the wall.

"What he plays with is the back and forth your brain does," Backus explains. There's no change in the way your retina responds to what you're seeing, just in the way your brain decides to interpret it. "This is the decision made by your visual system for you unconsciously and automatically. Your brain just decides for you whether it wants to interpret that image as a cube popping out or a light projected into a corner.

Nat Trotman, the Guggenheim curator, puts it a different way: "It's just playing with the learned perceptual activities of our eyes," he says. "There's a conflict between what our perceptions tell us we're looking at and what we're actually looking at."

 

Color And Retinal Images

 

In contrast, the power of Turrell's latest work, Aten Reign lies less in our brains than in how our photo receptors and ganglion cells in the retina deal with colored light. The centerpiece of the artist's Guggenheim exhibition, built especially for the space, creates five oval rings of solid, slowly changing color that fills the museum's ground floor. Turrell enhances the intensity of the already-overwhelming, somewhat psychedelic color by manipulating the eye's natural tendency to adapt to a light source.

The Guggenheim exhibition's co-curator Nat Trotman describes the piece's construction in one of the museum's introductory videos:

 

The piece is built as a series of cones that proceed through the space, starting about 25 feet above the floor of the museum and proceeding almost to the top of the space. Between the viewer and the daylight, there are five concentric rings of LED fixtures that shine upwards, filling five separate conical chambers with slowly changing light. Like many of Turrell's works, the piece is intended to create a contemplative or meditative atmosphere."

 

 

With 950 LED light fixtures forming five rings, standing in what normally would be the Guggenheim's open, sun-lit lobby feels like being inside a series of giant colored eggs. The LEDs shine upward, lighting up each of the chambers constructed inside the famous Frank Lloyd Wright rotunda. The top section mixes artificial light with the natural light from the museum's ceiling, normally a window to the sky outside. The colored light fills the entire atrium, slowly shifting in hue, designed in such a way to maximize the intensity of each color.

"Aten Reign does cause changes in the retinal image that are part of the effect in the viewer. It has these very large planes of color," Backus explains. "Your eye will adapt to them that causes the next color to have a very different qualia--the experience of a sensory stimulus. The qualia is different for the same light depending on what came before because you adapt to the light from before."

The LACMA catalog of the artist's work describes it like this:

Turrell had noticed that our perception varies in common situations as well. At dusk a red flower will appear darker and blacker, while a blue one will appear brighter. This is because when light is present, our sight relies on the cones of the retina (photopic vision); in darkness, it depends upon the rods (scotopic vision). When the shift between cones and rods occurs, human vision is compromised, leaving us virtually color blind. And in total darkness, the body's other senses become triggered and awareness is heightened. In the absence of light, an artwork becomes "about your seeing," Turrell noted. "It is responsive to the viewer.

 

Semi-Ganzfeld

James Turrell, Aten Reign, 2013, Daylight and LED light, dimensions variable © James Turrell, Installation view: James Turrell, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, June 21–September 25, 2013

David Heald © Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York

 

After spending enough time looking at one color, our vision normalizes, and the color saturation doesn't seem as intense as it did right off the bat. When you look away from that color, though, your eyes take a moment to readjust, sort of like the white balance in a camera, leaving lingering splotches of color in your vision. Seeing green after a long period staring at pink, for instance, intensifies the green you see, because your eyes have adjusted to adding a bit of the green to the world to balance out the pink, its complementary color. "He's programmed the colors you see take advantage of that," Trotman says.

"Part of the appeal of Aten Reign is just the technical sensory experience. I's a technical tour de force. Those smooth lines, that large sense of overlapping, homogeneous color," Backus marvels, makes it an unusual object in our visual environment. "The three-dimensionality of the piece is extraordinary…it's like being in a big beehive."

Unlike some of his earlier works that explore a more classical interpretation of a Ganzfeld, in Aten Reign, the light is broken up into different sections that provide contrast within the otherwise solid field of light. But there's still something of a Ganzfeld experience in the mesmerizing bath of light swirling around in the Guggenheim's central atrium.

"Because there's such a slow change in color [across the surface], there's literally nothing to see. There's nothing for your visual system to fixate on," Backus explains. "There's nothing with contrast in it between those levels. From one edge to the next, it's just color. There's no speck of dust there's just nothing, nothing at all, just the color between the levels. It's kind of like having each one being its own separate Ganzfeld."

 

James Turrell

The artist in front of Roden Crater, his unfinished masterpiece in the desert near Flagstaff, Arizona.

Florian Holzherr © James Turrell

 

"One of the deep things about this art is it reveals to you is the fact that everything you see is constructed by your brain," Backus says. "In some very deep sense, everything you see is an illusion. What we experience are just mental representations."

You can see more of Turrell's perceptual art at the Guggenheim until Sept. 25, 2013 and at LACMA until April 6, 2014.

Chemistry's Biggest Loser: Official Atomic Weights Change For 19 Elements

$
0
0

The Periodic Table of the Elements, by electronic structure
Alison Haigh
Yttrium, are you looking a bit chubbier these days? 

Improved measurements of different elements and their isotopes have changed the official atomic weights of 19 elements, the International Union of Applied Chemistry and the U.S. Geological Survey announced today. The changes are relatively small, and they're part of a regular effort to update atomic weights. 

Here's a vocab refresher in case you've forgotten your high school (or college) chemistry. Every atom of an element—let's take silver as an example—has the same number of protons. Silver has 47. However, not every atom of an element necessarily has the same number of neutrons. These different versions of an element's atoms are called isotopes. Silver occurs as silver-109 and silver-107. Chemists calculate the atomic weight of an element that you see on the periodic table from the masses of its isotopes, giving more common isotopes more weight than less common isotopes. 

That doesn't necessarily mean every sample of silver on Earth has an atomic weight of exactly 107.86822, however. Instead, samples of elements vary from place to place. These differences play an important role in many sciences. They help chemists trace the origin of different materials (Where does my groundwater come from?) and date archaeological findings. The latest atomic weights measurements differ too little from their predecessors to make really change science now… but you never know, says Norman Holden, a nuclear physicist with the U.S.' Brookhaven National Laborary. 

"If it's just small changes, why do you do it?" he tells Popular Science. "We've always felt that we should give the best numbers there are because we can't predict when some new idea will come up that needs more accurate data." 

So this isn't exactly a radical announcement. Nevertheless, we figured—why not take a look at some of this update's biggest losers and gainers? Here are the tops:

Biggest Gainers
photo of two samples of molybdenum
Molybdenum, Gaining 0.0122 (Atomic weights are relative, so they don't have units)
Heinrich Pnoik (www.pse.mendelejew.de), FAL 1.3

photo of sample of thorium
Thorium, Gaining 0.000322
Heinrich Pnoik (www.pse.mendelejew.de), FAL 1.3

photo of samples of yttrium
Yttrium and Niobium, Tied, Gaining 0.00001 (Photo Shows Yttrium)
Heinrich Pnoik (www.pse.mendelejew.de), FAL 1.3

Biggest Losers
photo of two allotropes of selenium
Selenium, Losing 0.0088
Heinrich Pnoik (www.pse.mendelejew.de), FAL 1.3

photo of two samples of cadmium
Cadmium, Losing 0.0026
Heinrich Pnoik (www.pse.mendelejew.de), FAL 1.3

photo of a sample of holmium
Holmium, Thulium and Praseodymium, All Tied, Losing 0.00001 (Photo Shows Holmium)
Author unknown, CC BY 1.0

The changes in weights mostly come from continuing improvements in atomic mass measurements, including advances in the technology behind mass spectrometers. But it's not all about measuring more accurately. For one of our biggest losers, thorium, the IUPAC decided to recognize an isotope, thorium-230, that it previously thought was too rare to include in atomic weight calculations. 

The last time international chemistry agencies really altered the periodic table was in 2009, when IUPAC decided to list the atomic weights of some elements as ranges, instead of single numbers. The change affected a number of low-mass elements, such as hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and sulfur. The ranges show students the possible atomic weights for each element, which can vary depending on the origin of the element. You can print a copy of the IUPAC's peroidic table for free.

"We wanted to let high school students and college students know that atomic weights are not constants of nature," says Tyler Coplen, a U.S. Geological Survey chemist who works on isotopes research and official atomic weights changes. "This is the way we did that, by giving them interval atomic weight values."


Central Park Monkeys Caught Whispering About Hated Supervisor

$
0
0

Cotton-Top Tamarin
via

The tamarins of New York City's Central Park Zoo have been caught telling secrets. In the first recorded evidence of whisper-like behavior in non-human primates, the tiny monkeys were observed making very quiet, almost inaudible vocalizations in the presence of zoo supervisor who they found threatening.

These cotton-top tamarins had a history of going wild in the presence of this supervisor, who they associated with their both capture and uncomfy medical procedures. In the past, they had harassed him with loud vocalizations, according to the zoo staff. But when researchers from the City University of New York recorded the tamarins' behavior before, during and after visits from the supervisor, they found that the monkeys didn't mob him as they had previously--instead, they emitted low amplitude chirps and whistles, the monkey equivalent of whispers. The calls were so quiet that the researchers didn't even catch them at first.

"Although it is unclear what the motivational state of the tamarins was when in presence of the supervisor, it appears that they were responding to him as an ambiguous threat and may have been investigating the situation by cautiously approaching him to determine the actual level of threat and communicating to each other the appropriate behavioral response to take," they write.

This is the first observation of a monkey's whispering ways, but other animals have been caught lowering their voices before. Richardson's ground squirrels use ultrasonic whispers to warn nearby relatives of danger, for one. Some birds, bats, and even a species of fish have also been found to occasionally lower their voices, in threatening situations, while hunting and during courtship. It's possible that more animals than we realize have the ability to whisper, the researchers conclude, but since the whole point of a whisper is to be subtle, scientists just haven't noticed.

The full study is available in Zoo Biology.

[Discovery News]

Google Science Fair Winners Are Some Amazing Kids

$
0
0

Science Fair Winners

Every year, Google holds one of the most impressive science fairs in the world (along with Intel's). This year, teenagers from 120 countries submitted amazing projects--projects to diagnose diseases, to make smartphones do amazing new things, to create exoskeletons, and many more. Three winners, one from each of three age groups, were selected at Google headquarters in California.

The youngest category, a fight among 13- and 14-year-olds, was won by Viney Kumar of Sydney, Australia, with a project called the PART Program. PART stands for Police and Ambulances Regulating Traffic, and it's designed to give alerts to drivers when an ambulance or police vehicle is approaching, beyond the regular sirens and flashing lights. The project is targeted at the high-end present and very near future, when we're all syncing our smartphones with our cars--mid-range and expensive cars have this ability now, and soon that'll trickle down even further. It uses GPS from emergency vehicles to beam precise locations to your phone, which then gives you an alert (both graphical and audio) as you drive. Pretty impressive for a kid in ninth grade.

Ann Makosinski of Victoria, BC, Canada won the 15- to 16-year-old category with her hollow, battery-less flashlight. It uses Peltier tiles, which produce electricity when one side of the tile is hot while the other is cold. The source of the heat on the hot side of the tile is simply the heat from the user's hand. 

And finally the big boy, relatively: the 17- to 18-year-old category was won by Eric Chen of the U.S., with a startlingly mature project that's attempting to create a medicine effective against every kind of flu. From Google:  "Combining computer modeling and biological studies, Eric’s project looks at influenza endonuclease inhibitors as leads for a new type of anti-flu medicine."

You can read more about the Google Science Fair winners here.

Plastic Bags Transformed Into Eco-Friendly Carbon Nanotubes

$
0
0

photo of a plastic bag on a Los Angeles beach
Common Beach Litter
Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County

Here's a real Cinderella transformation story. A team of chemists has found a way to turn non-biodegradable plastic bags into a carbon nanotube membrane, a high-tech material with potential to make super-efficient filters. Scientists are still exploring exactly what they would want to filter with the membranes, but some recent work has looked at using them to desalinate water.

This actually isn't the first time chemists have turned those ubiquitous bags into carbon nanotubes. What makes this effort a little different is that it doesn't require a chemical catalyst or solvent, which often aren't environmentally friendly. 

To gather the carbon from plastic bags, the researchers, a team from the University of Adelaide in Australia, vaporized the bags in a furnace. They formed the carbon nanotubes—tubes made of a sheet of carbon just one atom thick—from the vapor. A special alumina membrane with nano-size pores helped the chemists control the shape and orientation of the tubes that formed.

The team had originally been making carbon nanotube membranes using ethanol as a carbon source, the lead scientist, Dusan Losic, said in a statement. But then Losic's doctoral student, Tariq Altalhi, thought that any carbon source ought to work. 

Losic, Atalhi and their colleagues published their work in the journal Carbon.

[University of Adelaide on EurekAlert]

FYI: Do Animals Have Orgasms?

$
0
0

Monkey Business
Noneotuho via Wikimedia Commons

Ah, the age-old question. When animals are going at it like, uh, animals, how does it end? Is there an animal version of the Big O?

It's a bit hard to say, actually. "The short answer is that we don't know much about orgasms in other species -- in fact, scientists are still studying the significance/evolution of female orgasms in humans," Marlene Zuk, a professor of ecology, evolution and behavior at the University of Minnesota, wrote me in an email.

Unlike humans, animals can't tell us they're having orgasms, so we can't truly know what their experience is like. For the most part, we assume that male animals orgasm because there's an ejaculation--though one can happen without the other, they usually go hand-in-hand. (Or something in hand.) The question of female orgasm is, as usual, more hotly contested, though all female mammals have clitorises.

Scientists can infer that animals--mostly primates--orgasm through recording physiological or behavioral aspects, like muscle contractions or changes in vocalization. Studies of primate orgasm have often focused on macaques, a subset of monkeys which are used often in research because they're genetically similar to humans and have similar reproductive systems. According to Alfonso Troisi, a clinical psychiatrist in Rome who has studied female orgasm in Japanese macaques, they're easier to study in the lab than gorillas or chimps. Macaques species tend to have longer copulations than other primate species like gorillas, which is a bonus if you're trying to observe their mating behavior.

"In the lab, by artificial stimulation, it is possible to trigger female orgasm in virtually any primate species."In a 1998 study, he and his co-author wrote that "Under specific circumstances, nonhuman primate females may experience orgasm." But, the rate at which the females orgasmed was variable, and they weren't exactly sure what caused them. Their study found that the level of dominance of the male macaque might play a role, for instance. But, as Troisi wrote me via email, "In the lab, by artificial stimulation, it is possible to trigger female orgasm in virtually any primate species."

At the Institute for Primate Studies in Norman, Okla., psychologist William Lemmon and his grad student, Mel Allen, argued that "the female chimpanzee manifests most, if not all, of the indices of sexual arousal and orgasm that occur in women."

They get more specific in the 1981 study:

sexual responses detected included transudate secretion, clitoral tumescence, vaginal thickening and expansion, hyperventilation, involuntary muscle tension, arm and leg spasms, clutching, facial expressions (eg, low open grin, low closed grin, eversion of the lips, protrusion of the tongue), and a panting vocalization.

Allen manually stimulated the clitorises and vaginas of female chimps in the course of writing his master's thesis at the University of Oklahoma, "Sexual response and orgasm in the female chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)." (Surely he had fun describing his work at parties.) As he and Lemmon wrote in their later paper, "Most of these females permitted stimulation to continue to sexual arousal. One of them allowed stimulation to continue to orgasm on ten separate occasions." As they so dutifully recorded, the average number of "digital thrusts" required (performed "at an approximate rate of one to two per second") before the onset of vaginal muscle contractions: 20.3. Poor Allen.  

Stanford University anthropologist Suzanne Chevalier-Skolnikoff, in 1974, writing on homosexual encounters between female stumptail macaques:

On three recorded occasions, the female mounter displayed all the behavioral manifestations of orgasm generally displayed by males: a pause followed by muscular body spasms accompanied by the characteristic frowning round-mouthed stare expression and the rhythmic expiration vocalization.

And yes, drawings were involved.

Stumptail Monkey Orgasms
Suzanne Chevalier-Skolnikoff, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1974

So, when it comes to primates, orgasms definitely seem to occur. What about the rest of the animal kingdom?

"Who knows whether it feels like a human [orgasm], but the external behaviour looks like it."The male red-billed buffalo weaver is the only species of bird we know of that exhibits orgasm-like behavior, according to Tim Birkhead, a professor in Sheffield University's Department of Animal and Plant Sciences. Birkhead spent years trying to observe the birds getting down, culminating in a study published in 2001. The buffalo weaver, a native of sub-Saharan Africa, has a fake penis--it has no sperm duct and doesn't become erect, but when Birkhead and his colleagues manually stimulated a buffalo weaver's mock member, the bird had what seemed to be an orgasm. As Birkhead described to me via email, "the bird shudders its wings and clenches its feet as it ejaculates-- who knows whether it feels like a human [orgasm], but the external behaviour looks like it." He says the organ is purely stimulatory, but they're currently investigating its anatomy further.

And what of dolphins, widely touted as the only other species to have sex for pleasure?

First of all, orgasms aside, animals don't get it on because they really want to make babies. They do it because it feels good (which ends up being good for the propagation of the species, too). As Daniel Bergner puts it in his book What Women Want:

The rat does not think, I want to have a baby. Such planning is beyond her. The drive is for immediate reward, for pleasure. And the gratification has to be powerful enough to outweigh the expenditure of energy and the fear of injury from competitors or predators that might come with claiming it. It has to outweigh the terror of getting killed while you are lost in getting laid. The gratification of sex has to be extremely high.

"Nowadays, there is little money around (even in the US), field researchers get no funds, and scientists working in the lab face the opposition of animal rights activists."Tadamichi Morisaka, an assistant professor at Kyoto University's Wildlife Research Center, says that dolphins do engage in masturbation without ejaculation "a lot," as well as other non-breeding-related genital touching, called socio-sexual behavior, especially between males. However, "We have no idea that dolphins feel orgasm or not because there is no study to measure brain response during sexual activity in dolphins," he told me via email.

Morisaka did catch the first spontaneous ejaculation ever recorded in a dolphin, which he published (with a mildly NSFW video) in a hyper-readable study in PLOS ONE. Spontaneous ejaculation has thus far been recorded in drowsy rats, guinea pigs, domestic cats, warthogs, horses and chimpanzees, according to the study.

As fun as this kind of research is to read about, watching animals get down in the hopes of detailing their climaxes in a scholarly manner appears to have gone out of style.

"The 1970s and 1980s were the golden years for primate research and animal ethology," according to Troisi, who left primate research a decade ago. "Nowadays, there is little money around (even in the US), field researchers get no funds, and scientists working in the lab face the opposition of animal rights activists. In addition, this the era of neuroscience and molecular genetics. Few people pay attention to behavioral observation," he wrote.

Hooking monkeys up in a dog-harness contraption and stimulating them with essentially a silicon monkey dildo, for instance, might be tough to get approved these days.

Other researchers echoed the sentiment. Kim Wallen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, says "animal studies have essentially disappeared."

According to Wallen, there have been a variety of factors involved in the demise of animal orgasm research. For one thing, it's easier to study human orgasms now that we can stick people in an fMRI scanner. Studying animal sex is hard--as evidenced by Birkhead's account to Nature of what it was like to chase around mating birds: "I'd run after them, sweating profusely with my binoculars steaming up."

Plus, the type of animal studies approved in the '70s and '80s might not make it past research review boards today. University of Toronto researcher Frances Burton's 1970 work, which involved hooking monkeys up in a dog-harness contraption and stimulating them with essentially a silicon monkey dildo, for instance, might be tough to get approved these days.

And though it's likely that most non-human primates have the ability to orgasm, we can't really know for sure if it's analogous to the human variety. As Zuk wrote me, "what all this points to is our own inability to know what other animals experience."

FYI: Can Wireless Electricity Kill People?

$
0
0

Shock and Awe
Nikola Tesla in his Niagara Falls lab with his coils, which could discharge millions of volts and send electricity through the air
Bettmann/Corbis

Probably not. Even when it's nipping at our toes, wireless electricity is pretty safe. In 1899, Serbian engineer Nikola Tesla built a 142-foot-tall, 12-million-volt electric coil in Colorado Springs and transmitted electricity wirelessly across 25 miles, illuminating 200 lamps with the charge. After he flipped the switch, flashes of lightning leaped from the coil, but no one was harmed.

Tesla's experiment proved that the Earth itself could be used to conduct electricity, no wires necessary. He also experimented with electromagnetic induction, a phenomenon discovered 70 years before Tesla's experiments by the English scientist Michael Faraday. In electromagnetic induction, an oscillating magnetic field around an electromagnet produces a current in a nearby conductor—in effect, the current jumps the gap. While it is airborne, electric energy exists as a magnetic field. Magnetic induction is used today in the contact plates on electric toothbrushes, transmitting a charge from the plastic-wrapped charging station to the battery inside the brush.

In 2006, Marin Soljacic, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sent wireless electricity across a room to light a 60-watt bulb. Soljacic used electromagnetic induction, but with a twist. By tuning the sending and receiving coils in his electromagnetic field to resonate at the same frequency and engage only at that frequency (the way glass will shatter when struck by sound waves of just the right pitch), the current is focused and bypasses everything else, humans included. Resonant coupling, as Soljacic's process is known, is far more efficient than Tesla's attempts, and safer too.

Soljacic has a company called WiTricity, and he can now send 3,000 watts across a room—or a garage, since 3,000 watts can charge an electric car.

This article originally appeared in the October 2011 issue of Popular Science magazine.

Viewing all 20161 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images