As the latest findings in his search for the “Theory of Everything” got press attention yet again, did Prof. Stephen Hawking got it right in concluding that God is not necessary in the creation of the Universe?
By: Ringo Bones
Back in September 2010, there had been a huge uproar over Prof. Stephen Hawking’s latest book titled “The Grand Design” where the eminent theoretical physics professor openly spoke out that God or any other contrived deity isn’t necessary or has nothing whatsoever to do with our Universe coming into being and its day to day operations. The remark may seem somewhat opinionated from the standpoint of “soft agnostics”, but even if Professor Hawking is right, many did question if he has the right to speak out such a conclusion.
From a theoretical physicist’s point of view, Hawking’s The Grand Design is a strong proof-based implication that “God” or any other dogmatically contrived deity is not needed on the creation of the Universe – i.e. the Big Bang. In this day and age, the strong consensus of the collection of evidence-based knowledge of the scientific community could easily trump theological dogma. Unfortunately – even in some affluent nations – religious dogma still reigns supreme and even reserves the right to deny the rights of ethnic minorities and women.
In a stark comparison to scientific consensus, even organized Christianity’s various denominations and sects can’t even agree on or even established an evidence-based consensus about the ontological empiricism defining “God”. Yet, the Archbishop of Canterbury who has the good fortune of establishing himself as the first and “loudest” critic of Professor Hawking’s latest opus – says that “physics” can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Even Brian May – guitarist of premier British rock band Queen – who also has several science degrees also voiced his criticism on Professor Hawking deciding to pit science with religion / spirituality.
Unfortunately, despite being now entrenched in NY Times’ Bestseller List, Hawking’s The Grand Design – like his previous works – will more likely than not be soon forgotten because an overwhelming majority who bought it only bought it as a conversation piece and for its novelty value, as opposed to their genuine fascination of the subject of cutting-edge theoretical physics. The science versus religion rift will probably never heal because religion still has the bigger war-chest that enables it to achieve its ends no matter how devious the means are.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, January 26, 2009
Incandescent Bulb Phase-Out: A Giant Leap for the Environment?
The phasing-out of incandescent bulbs – especially the 100-watt models – had already started in the EU. Will this measure really help our environment?
By: Vanessa Uy
Yep, it’s official. The phasing-out of tungsten-filament incandescent light bulbs – especially the 100-watt models – had already been declared mandatory in Europe by the start of 2009. And so does their manufacture to be replaced by those mercury-vapor compact fluorescent lamps, which with their screw-on sockets – can directly replace the older less-energy efficient incandescent bulbs. If this is the only a question of energy efficiency, then why are there still a somewhat large majority still skeptical in their use despite of the energy-saving properties of compact fluorescent lamps? First, let us compare the two somewhat radically different illumination technologies.
Tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs convert the 60Hz 220V alternating current electrical energy into light energy for illumination by heating the tungsten filament inside the incandescent bulb. The disadvantage of this technology is that only 10% of the incoming electrical energy are converted into light, while the other 90% is given-off as heat or thermal energy. What makes incandescent bulbs useful for use in poultry incubators can be somewhat of a waste of electrical bills when it comes to domestic illumination.
Compact fluorescent lamps or CFL ‘s – since their commercial manufacture and promotion in the late 1980’s – has been a “godsend” to those who want to lower their electrical utility bills in the illumination front. Like ordinary fluorescent lamps, CFL ’s convert the incoming electrical energy into light when the electricity converts the mercury vapor inside the tube into ultraviolet radiation in which the bulb’s coating of phosphorescent materials – usually zinc sulfide – converts the ultraviolet radiation into more or less visible light. Fluorescent –type lamps usually convert 79 to 85% of the incoming electrical energy into light which make them easily 7 to 8 times more efficient than ordinary incandescent bulbs in energy usage terms. The advantage of compact fluorescent lamps over ordinary fluorescent lamps is that because of their screw-on base, they can directly be used as a replacement for “inefficient” incandescent bulbs. If this is all about lowering our energy consumption and reducing our carbon footprint, then why are there still more people “seeing red” over the “green” potential of compact fluorescent lamps?
First, let’s start with everyone’s aesthetic tastes – which could be seen by most environmentalists as irrelevant when it comes to energy use – is the primary – make that the only reason – why some people really hate compact fluorescent lamps. CFL ‘ s are very notorious for their bad spectral output – i.e. the light that they give off is utterly unnatural, even when compared to fluorescent lamps of “previous generation”. Honestly, I can only gain wisdom comparable to that of the newly elected US President Barack Obama only when I’m working under Northerly-Lights akin to that frequently used by the Dutch painter Jan Vermeer. In which, sadly, even the latest generation of compact fluorescent lamps still can’t provide. Nuclear war fallout shelter use for the next 35 years in hiding for illumination they are not!
Then there’s that significant mercury content of compact fluorescent lamps. If these lamps happen to end up in countries where their manufacturer’s recycling and proper disposal department is absent. Then compact fluorescent lamps will be more trouble than they are worth when their expired brethren will be contaminating elemental mercury into the local biosphere despite of the carbon dioxide emissions that these types of lamps can happen to reduce. Then there’s the concern of somewhat high ultraviolet radiation output of these lamps, especially when you are using them as desktop lamps - which could cause most of us to be concerned when it comes to possible skin cancer effects.
Are compact fluorescent lamps – in spite of their energy efficiency – really more trouble than they are worth? In the short-term, the answer is a big fat yes. Their spectral output can be an eyesore to a significant number of people. Plus, they need to be disposed of properly when they die - in spite of their longer life-span that’s usually 5 times more than old-style tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs – because of their significantly high mercury content. Major manufacturing firms of compact fluorescent lamps should start looking into these problems as soon as possible. Maybe the best way to reduce our carbon footprint when it comes to lighting is to just turn off unnecessary lights, isn’t it?
By: Vanessa Uy
Yep, it’s official. The phasing-out of tungsten-filament incandescent light bulbs – especially the 100-watt models – had already been declared mandatory in Europe by the start of 2009. And so does their manufacture to be replaced by those mercury-vapor compact fluorescent lamps, which with their screw-on sockets – can directly replace the older less-energy efficient incandescent bulbs. If this is the only a question of energy efficiency, then why are there still a somewhat large majority still skeptical in their use despite of the energy-saving properties of compact fluorescent lamps? First, let us compare the two somewhat radically different illumination technologies.
Tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs convert the 60Hz 220V alternating current electrical energy into light energy for illumination by heating the tungsten filament inside the incandescent bulb. The disadvantage of this technology is that only 10% of the incoming electrical energy are converted into light, while the other 90% is given-off as heat or thermal energy. What makes incandescent bulbs useful for use in poultry incubators can be somewhat of a waste of electrical bills when it comes to domestic illumination.
Compact fluorescent lamps or CFL ‘s – since their commercial manufacture and promotion in the late 1980’s – has been a “godsend” to those who want to lower their electrical utility bills in the illumination front. Like ordinary fluorescent lamps, CFL ’s convert the incoming electrical energy into light when the electricity converts the mercury vapor inside the tube into ultraviolet radiation in which the bulb’s coating of phosphorescent materials – usually zinc sulfide – converts the ultraviolet radiation into more or less visible light. Fluorescent –type lamps usually convert 79 to 85% of the incoming electrical energy into light which make them easily 7 to 8 times more efficient than ordinary incandescent bulbs in energy usage terms. The advantage of compact fluorescent lamps over ordinary fluorescent lamps is that because of their screw-on base, they can directly be used as a replacement for “inefficient” incandescent bulbs. If this is all about lowering our energy consumption and reducing our carbon footprint, then why are there still more people “seeing red” over the “green” potential of compact fluorescent lamps?
First, let’s start with everyone’s aesthetic tastes – which could be seen by most environmentalists as irrelevant when it comes to energy use – is the primary – make that the only reason – why some people really hate compact fluorescent lamps. CFL ‘ s are very notorious for their bad spectral output – i.e. the light that they give off is utterly unnatural, even when compared to fluorescent lamps of “previous generation”. Honestly, I can only gain wisdom comparable to that of the newly elected US President Barack Obama only when I’m working under Northerly-Lights akin to that frequently used by the Dutch painter Jan Vermeer. In which, sadly, even the latest generation of compact fluorescent lamps still can’t provide. Nuclear war fallout shelter use for the next 35 years in hiding for illumination they are not!
Then there’s that significant mercury content of compact fluorescent lamps. If these lamps happen to end up in countries where their manufacturer’s recycling and proper disposal department is absent. Then compact fluorescent lamps will be more trouble than they are worth when their expired brethren will be contaminating elemental mercury into the local biosphere despite of the carbon dioxide emissions that these types of lamps can happen to reduce. Then there’s the concern of somewhat high ultraviolet radiation output of these lamps, especially when you are using them as desktop lamps - which could cause most of us to be concerned when it comes to possible skin cancer effects.
Are compact fluorescent lamps – in spite of their energy efficiency – really more trouble than they are worth? In the short-term, the answer is a big fat yes. Their spectral output can be an eyesore to a significant number of people. Plus, they need to be disposed of properly when they die - in spite of their longer life-span that’s usually 5 times more than old-style tungsten-filament incandescent bulbs – because of their significantly high mercury content. Major manufacturing firms of compact fluorescent lamps should start looking into these problems as soon as possible. Maybe the best way to reduce our carbon footprint when it comes to lighting is to just turn off unnecessary lights, isn’t it?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Lie Detectors: How Truthful Are These Devices?
The modern lie detector / polygraph test has said to have been used in proving guilt or innocence in offences as varied as petty theft to witnessing an “alleged” alien abduction. But are these machines truthful?
By: Vanessa Uy
The high-profile use of lie detectors / polygraph test machines in the US justice system range from the proving the guilt or innocence of rogue CIA agents to the credibility of alien abduction witnesses and victims. Even though majority of us know that these devices are used to determine whether the subject being tested is telling the truth or not, but can the machine irrefutably determine the guilt or innocence of the “test subject”?
In reality, polygraph test devices – or as it is more famously known colloquially as lie detector machines – measures how the subject reacts to the set of questions being asked physiologically. Whether the subject is lying or not is usually determined by the person supervising the test basing on the resulting measurements. One of the few manufacturers of purpose-built polygraph devices is the Lafayette Instrument Company in Lafayette, Indiana. The manufacturing firm makes polygraph devices that costs around 12,000 US dollars each. A typical polygraph – usually classified as a 4-pin device - has several modules that measures galvanic skin response – or GSR, the breathing rate via a pneumosensor, and the heart rate and blood pressure.
Newer digital / PC-based polygraph devices now exist (and are even way cheaper), but these are not as accurate as a purpose-build polygraph device. Though PC-based 4-pin polygraph devices has a proviso to store / save data digitally. Even though these types of polygraph does very well in their intended roles like measuring GSR, heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, etc. They cannot yet irrefutably determine the guilt or innocence of the person under test. That's why, lie detectors / polygraph test data are usually inadmissible in criminal court proceedings where the polygraph data is used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The latest form of these “lie detector” devices is called Brain Fingerprinting, which is touted to be more accurate than the current polygraph test devices in use. Developed by Dr. Laurence Farwell – a Seattle-based neuroscientist, Brain Fingerprinting is a radically new type of “lie detector” that has proven to have a more than 90% certainty rate in determining whether the subject is telling the truth or not. The newfangled system locks on to the P300 murmur response of the brain when the test subject is asked a well-selected roster of pertinent questions about the crime. The test subject’s brain response / brain wave patterns is measured via a sensor cap. At present, brain fingerprinting test results is not yet admissible as evidence in majority of US courts.
Despite of the advances in lie detection technology over the years, the US justice system is still weary of accepting polygraph test / lie detection data as evidence because the test results are open to interpretation. And lie detection devices somewhat violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination when such devices are used in criminal trial proceedings. Plus, it’s been proven that polygraph test devices / lie detectors are not infallible. Former CIA double agents / rogue agents Aldrich Aames and Howard Woodward “aced” their polygraph tests during the 1980’s even though the other evidence presented in their trials proved their guilt. Howard Woodward even manage to escape into the Iron Curtain more than 20 years ago and his whereabouts today still remain unknown despite the Cold War ending for almost two decades.
By: Vanessa Uy
The high-profile use of lie detectors / polygraph test machines in the US justice system range from the proving the guilt or innocence of rogue CIA agents to the credibility of alien abduction witnesses and victims. Even though majority of us know that these devices are used to determine whether the subject being tested is telling the truth or not, but can the machine irrefutably determine the guilt or innocence of the “test subject”?
In reality, polygraph test devices – or as it is more famously known colloquially as lie detector machines – measures how the subject reacts to the set of questions being asked physiologically. Whether the subject is lying or not is usually determined by the person supervising the test basing on the resulting measurements. One of the few manufacturers of purpose-built polygraph devices is the Lafayette Instrument Company in Lafayette, Indiana. The manufacturing firm makes polygraph devices that costs around 12,000 US dollars each. A typical polygraph – usually classified as a 4-pin device - has several modules that measures galvanic skin response – or GSR, the breathing rate via a pneumosensor, and the heart rate and blood pressure.
Newer digital / PC-based polygraph devices now exist (and are even way cheaper), but these are not as accurate as a purpose-build polygraph device. Though PC-based 4-pin polygraph devices has a proviso to store / save data digitally. Even though these types of polygraph does very well in their intended roles like measuring GSR, heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate, etc. They cannot yet irrefutably determine the guilt or innocence of the person under test. That's why, lie detectors / polygraph test data are usually inadmissible in criminal court proceedings where the polygraph data is used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The latest form of these “lie detector” devices is called Brain Fingerprinting, which is touted to be more accurate than the current polygraph test devices in use. Developed by Dr. Laurence Farwell – a Seattle-based neuroscientist, Brain Fingerprinting is a radically new type of “lie detector” that has proven to have a more than 90% certainty rate in determining whether the subject is telling the truth or not. The newfangled system locks on to the P300 murmur response of the brain when the test subject is asked a well-selected roster of pertinent questions about the crime. The test subject’s brain response / brain wave patterns is measured via a sensor cap. At present, brain fingerprinting test results is not yet admissible as evidence in majority of US courts.
Despite of the advances in lie detection technology over the years, the US justice system is still weary of accepting polygraph test / lie detection data as evidence because the test results are open to interpretation. And lie detection devices somewhat violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination when such devices are used in criminal trial proceedings. Plus, it’s been proven that polygraph test devices / lie detectors are not infallible. Former CIA double agents / rogue agents Aldrich Aames and Howard Woodward “aced” their polygraph tests during the 1980’s even though the other evidence presented in their trials proved their guilt. Howard Woodward even manage to escape into the Iron Curtain more than 20 years ago and his whereabouts today still remain unknown despite the Cold War ending for almost two decades.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Blue LED Water Purification
They consume very little power for the amount of light that they give off, but are blue light-emitting diodes or LED’s produce enough ultraviolet or UV radiation to kill water-borne bacteria to make water safe to drink?
By: Ringo Bones
I was skeptical at first given my first-hand experience and working knowledge of light-emitting diodes. But a research scientist at the Berlin Institute of Technology had recently claimed that he had developed a set-up to purify water – i.e. killing water-borne bacteria via ultraviolet radiation – using just an array of blue light-emitting diodes. If this works, it would start a new revolution on how we obtain safe drinking water. Given that blue LED’s are hundreds of times – even more – efficient than the mercury-vapor lamps currently in use to produce ultraviolet rays to kill water-borne bacteria and other pathogens as a way of making water safe to drink.
The blue LED water purification concept was aired on October 6, 2008 in a DW-TV science program titled Tomorrow-Today. Michael Kneissl of the Berlin Institute of Technology has demonstrated his blue LED water purification prototype set-up with claims that the blue light-emitting diode array produces enough UV radiation to “zap” harmful water-borne bacteria. If this is true, then Michael Kneissl probably made himself a Nobel Prize worthy concept given that mercury-vapor UV lamps currently used in this type of water purification are very power hungry in comparison to the (claimed off the shelf) blue light-emitting diodes that he used.
Theoretically, light-emitting diodes can last thousands of years – up to 150,00 years - if used well below their current limit ratings. If the Berlin Institute of Technology’s blue LED-based water purification system used current levels very near the limit of those rated for the blue light-emitting diodes, they would still last years compared to UV generating mercury-vapor lamps. If the concept goes on line, it will probably be the water purification method with the lowest carbon footprint given the energy efficiency of light-emitting diodes.
By: Ringo Bones
I was skeptical at first given my first-hand experience and working knowledge of light-emitting diodes. But a research scientist at the Berlin Institute of Technology had recently claimed that he had developed a set-up to purify water – i.e. killing water-borne bacteria via ultraviolet radiation – using just an array of blue light-emitting diodes. If this works, it would start a new revolution on how we obtain safe drinking water. Given that blue LED’s are hundreds of times – even more – efficient than the mercury-vapor lamps currently in use to produce ultraviolet rays to kill water-borne bacteria and other pathogens as a way of making water safe to drink.
The blue LED water purification concept was aired on October 6, 2008 in a DW-TV science program titled Tomorrow-Today. Michael Kneissl of the Berlin Institute of Technology has demonstrated his blue LED water purification prototype set-up with claims that the blue light-emitting diode array produces enough UV radiation to “zap” harmful water-borne bacteria. If this is true, then Michael Kneissl probably made himself a Nobel Prize worthy concept given that mercury-vapor UV lamps currently used in this type of water purification are very power hungry in comparison to the (claimed off the shelf) blue light-emitting diodes that he used.
Theoretically, light-emitting diodes can last thousands of years – up to 150,00 years - if used well below their current limit ratings. If the Berlin Institute of Technology’s blue LED-based water purification system used current levels very near the limit of those rated for the blue light-emitting diodes, they would still last years compared to UV generating mercury-vapor lamps. If the concept goes on line, it will probably be the water purification method with the lowest carbon footprint given the energy efficiency of light-emitting diodes.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Fact Free Science: A Threat to Western Civilization?
Faced with ever diminishing educational budgets and the rise of extremist religious orthodoxy, is this cherished body of knowledge we call science in danger of dying off in our ever-complacent Western Civilization?
By: Vanessa Uy
Maybe it was one of James P. Hogan’s musings about “science” being too often referred to as this body of information that “everybody knows” because they heard it somewhere that got me thinking about why I find mainstream educators’ methods of teaching science wanting. I mean how often does anyone check out the original sources, or ask whether there might be “other” original sources reporting different results but getting less publicity?
Given the runaway success of the Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters, it seems that I’m hardly alone in questioning the “establishment’s” stance on what they define as science in the first place. Or could this be the raison d’être why the Mythbusters even attempt to evaluate – from time to time – “alternative technologies” like alleged perpetual motion machines, zero-point energy generators, and anti-gravity devices among other things. Sometimes I wonder if the Mythbusters Adam and Jamie are just doing this as a form of public service every time they try to debunk or redeem these “alternative technologies” on basic cable.
Recently, some scientists with more accredited accolades – compared to the number of vinyl LP s that I have - expressed dire warnings with regards to the September 10, 2008 experiments at CERN. About how the Large Hadron Collider could inadvertently create a black hole of sufficient strength to suck our entire planet into oblivion. Given that experiments like these had been performed even when there was a “Manhattan Project” to examine atomic structure. Every scientist – even those that don’t belong in the lofty domain of theoretical physics – should at least have a basic inkling that a mere “atom smasher” could destroy the Earth. Our Penning Trap technology is so primitive, we can – at present – only store a few atoms at a time of anti-matter for particle accelerator use. The resulting total energy output is only a bit greater than that produced by striking alight a match. Though within a few barns of the target’s cross section, temperatures similar to that found several thousandths of a second after the Big Bang is produced. Were still not even close to Captain Kirk era Star Trek technology were they can store several milligrams of anti-matter that is equivalent to a 600 megaton H-bomb for weapons use. Thus proving that tenured scientists are not immune from science myths and misconceptions currently permeating in the mainstream media.
Multi-billion dollar scientific experiments like these had always been a subject of scrutiny by conspiracy theorists, not only of the accusations of fleecing public funds, but also because of the difficulty of their reproducibility. Thus making it quite easy to question the resulting data of the experiments and cry foul due to the impossibility of a truly independent peer review. The growing popularity of the “Moon Landing Hoax” that accuses NASA of faking their manned trips to the Moon because it’s only the United States that could afford such multi-billion dollar scientific endeavors.
By: Vanessa Uy
Maybe it was one of James P. Hogan’s musings about “science” being too often referred to as this body of information that “everybody knows” because they heard it somewhere that got me thinking about why I find mainstream educators’ methods of teaching science wanting. I mean how often does anyone check out the original sources, or ask whether there might be “other” original sources reporting different results but getting less publicity?
Given the runaway success of the Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters, it seems that I’m hardly alone in questioning the “establishment’s” stance on what they define as science in the first place. Or could this be the raison d’être why the Mythbusters even attempt to evaluate – from time to time – “alternative technologies” like alleged perpetual motion machines, zero-point energy generators, and anti-gravity devices among other things. Sometimes I wonder if the Mythbusters Adam and Jamie are just doing this as a form of public service every time they try to debunk or redeem these “alternative technologies” on basic cable.
Recently, some scientists with more accredited accolades – compared to the number of vinyl LP s that I have - expressed dire warnings with regards to the September 10, 2008 experiments at CERN. About how the Large Hadron Collider could inadvertently create a black hole of sufficient strength to suck our entire planet into oblivion. Given that experiments like these had been performed even when there was a “Manhattan Project” to examine atomic structure. Every scientist – even those that don’t belong in the lofty domain of theoretical physics – should at least have a basic inkling that a mere “atom smasher” could destroy the Earth. Our Penning Trap technology is so primitive, we can – at present – only store a few atoms at a time of anti-matter for particle accelerator use. The resulting total energy output is only a bit greater than that produced by striking alight a match. Though within a few barns of the target’s cross section, temperatures similar to that found several thousandths of a second after the Big Bang is produced. Were still not even close to Captain Kirk era Star Trek technology were they can store several milligrams of anti-matter that is equivalent to a 600 megaton H-bomb for weapons use. Thus proving that tenured scientists are not immune from science myths and misconceptions currently permeating in the mainstream media.
Multi-billion dollar scientific experiments like these had always been a subject of scrutiny by conspiracy theorists, not only of the accusations of fleecing public funds, but also because of the difficulty of their reproducibility. Thus making it quite easy to question the resulting data of the experiments and cry foul due to the impossibility of a truly independent peer review. The growing popularity of the “Moon Landing Hoax” that accuses NASA of faking their manned trips to the Moon because it’s only the United States that could afford such multi-billion dollar scientific endeavors.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Radioactivity in Lead: Arresting Our Progress in Microelectronics?
Before it’s lead’s toxic effects to the human physiology that became an issue, now it’s the potential for too much alpha-particle emission. Will lead’s role in the electronic industry ever be less controversial?
By: Vanessa Uy
The Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard P. Feynman once said that a civilization’s technical prowess is gauged on how small they can built something or something similar like this but you get the picture. As our consumer electronics industry tries to design and built even smaller chip, they may find out that there’s a price to be paid in terms of device operational reliability. And they may soon reach their limit before it is imposed by the atomic structure of the semiconductor chips they are fabricating.
As an industry that prides itself on having enough time on their hands to ponder the sexier aspects of their work, the consumer electronics industry could be interpreted as so full of it whenever they ponder deep solid-state physics questions like how quantum-mechanical effects disrupt electrons. I mean how likely does the phenomena of electroweak interaction of Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam affect the day –to –day workings of our consumer electronic goods? Well, they – the electronic engineers involved in mass-producing consumer electronic goods - can now get their hands dirty in tackling on what used to be a theoretical problem. Namely how alpha-particle emissions from lead isotopes affect the reliability of their latest microprocessor’s operation? But before we proceed, here’s a primer on where all of this “hot lead” came from.
The much heavier elements found on the Earth’s crust were created by our Sun’s larger and much heavier predecessor; after it went out into a blaze of glory by turning into a supernova. In the briefest fractions of a second before blowing itself up, our Sun’s predecessor’s nuclear processes created a host of heavy elements like uranium and lead which was then reused when our Solar System and everything in it came into being. This is why all the lead currently found on the Earth was produced when an unstable element like uranium radioactively decayed. Not all the lead that we manage to mine is stable it still contains isotopes – more radioactive versions of itself – still decaying into a more stable element. Only the long passage of time will reduce the amount of alpha-particle emissions.
The bad news is that these alpha-particle emissions can easily wreak havoc by increasing the incidence of errors in the chip circuitry’s operation. And this will only increase as electronic manufacturing firms fabricate finer circuits that are more sensitive to alpha particles. Not to mention lowering the operating voltage of the device in order to reduce power consumption will also increase the error incidents due to alpha-particle interference.
One very effective solution is to consider obtaining the lead used for the manufacture of soldering alloys from sources that are hundreds of years old like lead salvaged from old ships / shipwrecks. Or roofs of 1,000-year-old European cathedrals – any lead that is old enough that its atoms had already decayed into its non-radioactive end products. I consider this a very effective solution because the hi-fi manufacturer Audionote used a similar procedure in obtaining the silver to be used in their audio amplifiers. Audionote only uses silver that’s been out of the ground for at least 30 years. “The older the silver the better” - the company says because they are always mindful on how stray alpha particles affect the sound quality of their products. Though I wonder why only thirty years, did Audionote bought their silver from a mine that uses fission bombs to dig their tunnels since it takes about 30 years for most of the nuclear fallout’s radioactivity to die down? Like if enough strontium 90 is present in the silver used in your audio amplifier, you have other worse things to worry about than how alpha particles can degrade the sound quality of your audio gear. And besides, only half the amount of strontium 90 would have radioactively decayed into something else by 30 years’ time. But given the high level signal that Audionote’s audio amplifiers handle only makes me wonder if this is only a marketing ploy to allow them to jack-up their retail price. Nonetheless, alpha-particle interaction in super small computer chips will be a major issue in consumer electronic manufacturing circles much sooner than later.
By: Vanessa Uy
The Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard P. Feynman once said that a civilization’s technical prowess is gauged on how small they can built something or something similar like this but you get the picture. As our consumer electronics industry tries to design and built even smaller chip, they may find out that there’s a price to be paid in terms of device operational reliability. And they may soon reach their limit before it is imposed by the atomic structure of the semiconductor chips they are fabricating.
As an industry that prides itself on having enough time on their hands to ponder the sexier aspects of their work, the consumer electronics industry could be interpreted as so full of it whenever they ponder deep solid-state physics questions like how quantum-mechanical effects disrupt electrons. I mean how likely does the phenomena of electroweak interaction of Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam affect the day –to –day workings of our consumer electronic goods? Well, they – the electronic engineers involved in mass-producing consumer electronic goods - can now get their hands dirty in tackling on what used to be a theoretical problem. Namely how alpha-particle emissions from lead isotopes affect the reliability of their latest microprocessor’s operation? But before we proceed, here’s a primer on where all of this “hot lead” came from.
The much heavier elements found on the Earth’s crust were created by our Sun’s larger and much heavier predecessor; after it went out into a blaze of glory by turning into a supernova. In the briefest fractions of a second before blowing itself up, our Sun’s predecessor’s nuclear processes created a host of heavy elements like uranium and lead which was then reused when our Solar System and everything in it came into being. This is why all the lead currently found on the Earth was produced when an unstable element like uranium radioactively decayed. Not all the lead that we manage to mine is stable it still contains isotopes – more radioactive versions of itself – still decaying into a more stable element. Only the long passage of time will reduce the amount of alpha-particle emissions.
The bad news is that these alpha-particle emissions can easily wreak havoc by increasing the incidence of errors in the chip circuitry’s operation. And this will only increase as electronic manufacturing firms fabricate finer circuits that are more sensitive to alpha particles. Not to mention lowering the operating voltage of the device in order to reduce power consumption will also increase the error incidents due to alpha-particle interference.
One very effective solution is to consider obtaining the lead used for the manufacture of soldering alloys from sources that are hundreds of years old like lead salvaged from old ships / shipwrecks. Or roofs of 1,000-year-old European cathedrals – any lead that is old enough that its atoms had already decayed into its non-radioactive end products. I consider this a very effective solution because the hi-fi manufacturer Audionote used a similar procedure in obtaining the silver to be used in their audio amplifiers. Audionote only uses silver that’s been out of the ground for at least 30 years. “The older the silver the better” - the company says because they are always mindful on how stray alpha particles affect the sound quality of their products. Though I wonder why only thirty years, did Audionote bought their silver from a mine that uses fission bombs to dig their tunnels since it takes about 30 years for most of the nuclear fallout’s radioactivity to die down? Like if enough strontium 90 is present in the silver used in your audio amplifier, you have other worse things to worry about than how alpha particles can degrade the sound quality of your audio gear. And besides, only half the amount of strontium 90 would have radioactively decayed into something else by 30 years’ time. But given the high level signal that Audionote’s audio amplifiers handle only makes me wonder if this is only a marketing ploy to allow them to jack-up their retail price. Nonetheless, alpha-particle interaction in super small computer chips will be a major issue in consumer electronic manufacturing circles much sooner than later.
Lead in Soldering: The Electronic Industry’s Weakest Link?
Ever since that worldwide movement to ban the metal lead from our everyday lives started very near the tail end of the 20th Century, consumer electronic manufacturing firms are busy searching for a replacement. Is this even feasible?
By: Vanessa Uy
Even though everyone’s fears about the heavy metal lead and it’s toxic effects on our bodies is not entirely irrational, many environmental pressure groups had been lobbying to anyone willing to listen to them for the total ban of the toxic metal lead from our everyday lives. Though an admirable goal, I really have some serious doubts about the practicality and feasibility of their lofty goals. Especially if these people are just lazily sitting back and not even formulating their own billion-dollar solutions.
Scandinavian countries have already eliminated the use of the toxic liquid metal mercury from all of their medical diagnostic instruments – i.e. thermometers – when the 21st Century came along. Legislating similar laws to phase out other “potentially toxic” substances from our everyday lives is easier said than done. Especially if our so called environmental pressure groups are already very much inebriated by the “poisoned fruits” of Web 2.0.
Take the soldering lead for instance. This humble tin and lead alloy is probably used by humanity for thousands of years, yet it is still an indispensable part of the consumer electronics industry. Especially when it comes to attaching microprocessors and other components to the circuit or PC board. It’s very likely that a majority of the passive consumers of our consumer electronics industry does not – and will not – give a damn about the miracles of lead-based soldering. Only the manufacturers and a dedicated few electronics hobbyists and DIY enthusiasts cares about how the lead content of our soldering is what help us perform those very tangible miracles we do everyday, even if we are the only witness to this miracle. The miracle of turning a fistful of wires and components into a full-blown symphony orchestra. Some even resort to monitoring the presence of lead in their bloodstream close to a daily basis.
There had been countless attempts over the years to replace lead-based solders in the consumer electronics industry. They range from very low melting point bismuth alloys, lead-free tin solders, even conductive polymers i.e. plastics that conduct electricity. So far, only bismuth and lead-free tin alloys have shown promise in replacing lead-based solders and even then these have their hosts of problems. Those bismuth-based alloys are even available in forms that will melt in warm water since they are originally used as triggering devices in fire suppression sprinkler systems. The only catch in using it is that bismuth based soldering alloys does not form strong joints to the components you are soldering to, unlike the proven reliability of lead-tin soldering alloys.
Lead free tin soldering alloys had been tried in the past for their potential in replacing lead-based soldering alloys. The problem with lead free tin solders is that they have a higher melting point than their lead-based counterparts, which increases their working temperature. The higher working temperature also increases the likelihood of damaging the electronic components that are to be attached / soldered on to the circuit board. Manufacturing “dry runs” had even resulted to the dreaded “pop-corn effect”, which occurs when residual moisture in the epoxy coating that shields an integrated circuit component vaporizes at the high temperatures needed to melt these newfangled lead-free solders. The epoxy then detaches from the chip device and pops open, which allows contaminants like airborne dust particles to enter and can even cause stresses in the coating.
Also a replacement for lead-tin solder is not cheap. An electronic industry insider even said that a viable replacement could cost the US consumer electronic industry alone upwards of a billion dollars annually, depending on the materials incorporated. Economics aside, the question now lingers on whether the volume increase in e-waste caused by unreliable electronic products failing is better than waiting for everyone to throw their lead-filled electronics to the trash heap 80 or a hundred years from now. Which do you think is more environmentally friendly?
By: Vanessa Uy
Even though everyone’s fears about the heavy metal lead and it’s toxic effects on our bodies is not entirely irrational, many environmental pressure groups had been lobbying to anyone willing to listen to them for the total ban of the toxic metal lead from our everyday lives. Though an admirable goal, I really have some serious doubts about the practicality and feasibility of their lofty goals. Especially if these people are just lazily sitting back and not even formulating their own billion-dollar solutions.
Scandinavian countries have already eliminated the use of the toxic liquid metal mercury from all of their medical diagnostic instruments – i.e. thermometers – when the 21st Century came along. Legislating similar laws to phase out other “potentially toxic” substances from our everyday lives is easier said than done. Especially if our so called environmental pressure groups are already very much inebriated by the “poisoned fruits” of Web 2.0.
Take the soldering lead for instance. This humble tin and lead alloy is probably used by humanity for thousands of years, yet it is still an indispensable part of the consumer electronics industry. Especially when it comes to attaching microprocessors and other components to the circuit or PC board. It’s very likely that a majority of the passive consumers of our consumer electronics industry does not – and will not – give a damn about the miracles of lead-based soldering. Only the manufacturers and a dedicated few electronics hobbyists and DIY enthusiasts cares about how the lead content of our soldering is what help us perform those very tangible miracles we do everyday, even if we are the only witness to this miracle. The miracle of turning a fistful of wires and components into a full-blown symphony orchestra. Some even resort to monitoring the presence of lead in their bloodstream close to a daily basis.
There had been countless attempts over the years to replace lead-based solders in the consumer electronics industry. They range from very low melting point bismuth alloys, lead-free tin solders, even conductive polymers i.e. plastics that conduct electricity. So far, only bismuth and lead-free tin alloys have shown promise in replacing lead-based solders and even then these have their hosts of problems. Those bismuth-based alloys are even available in forms that will melt in warm water since they are originally used as triggering devices in fire suppression sprinkler systems. The only catch in using it is that bismuth based soldering alloys does not form strong joints to the components you are soldering to, unlike the proven reliability of lead-tin soldering alloys.
Lead free tin soldering alloys had been tried in the past for their potential in replacing lead-based soldering alloys. The problem with lead free tin solders is that they have a higher melting point than their lead-based counterparts, which increases their working temperature. The higher working temperature also increases the likelihood of damaging the electronic components that are to be attached / soldered on to the circuit board. Manufacturing “dry runs” had even resulted to the dreaded “pop-corn effect”, which occurs when residual moisture in the epoxy coating that shields an integrated circuit component vaporizes at the high temperatures needed to melt these newfangled lead-free solders. The epoxy then detaches from the chip device and pops open, which allows contaminants like airborne dust particles to enter and can even cause stresses in the coating.
Also a replacement for lead-tin solder is not cheap. An electronic industry insider even said that a viable replacement could cost the US consumer electronic industry alone upwards of a billion dollars annually, depending on the materials incorporated. Economics aside, the question now lingers on whether the volume increase in e-waste caused by unreliable electronic products failing is better than waiting for everyone to throw their lead-filled electronics to the trash heap 80 or a hundred years from now. Which do you think is more environmentally friendly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
