Skip to content


3D printed cnc Solidoodle hack

Primary image

IMG-0078.JPG

What does it do?

Dear: LMR

Recently a friend asked me if I could make a cnc engraver for him. He has done all the work and purchased all the parts except for software and mounting the scraper to it. Basically it is going to mill PCB boards without the need of autoleveling at all. It will use a spring loaded scraper to etch a circuit board. I have already designed the part that needs printing. Wish me goo luck!!!

From: Noah

 

Below is the piece that happens to be the scraper.

Cost to build

Embedded video

Finished project

Number

Time to build

Type

URL to more information

Weight

read more

Posted in AI & Robotics.


Psychologists studied 5,000 genius kids for 45 years — a short film reveals its key findings—SMPY study video

Video is nice summary of history of Julian Stanley’s SMPY study

Psychologists studied 5,000 genius kids for 45 years — a short film reveals its key findings

From Strategy, a Flipboard magazine by Business Insider

In 1971, a psychologist named Julian Stanley issued the SAT to a group of 12- and 13-year-olds in an…

Read it on Flipboard

Read it on businessinsider.com

Go to Source

Posted in IQ Corner.


Brain Training – The "Controversy"

Brain Training – The “Controversy”

From Twitter, a Flipboard magazine by Elsevier Neuro

The Meriam-Webster defines training as: “the skill, knowledge, or experience acquired by one that trains.” In combination with the word “brain” it becomes a…

Read it on Flipboard

Read it on scitechconnect.elsevier.com

Go to Source

Posted in IQ Corner.


Self-folding electronics could enable advanced robotics

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces: The development, reported in ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, could lead to new ways for people to interact with machines and even create self-folding robots.

Posted in AI & Robotics.


New system allows near-zero-power sensors to communicate data over long distances

This low-cost, flexible epidermal medical-data patch prototype successfully transmitted information at up to 37500 bits per second across a 3,300-square-feet atrium. (credit: Dennis Wise/University of Washington)

University of Washington (UW) researchers have developed a low-cost, long-range data-communication system that could make it possible for medical sensors or billions of low-cost “internet of things” objects to connect via radio signals at long distances (up to 2.8 kilometers) and with 1000 times lower required power (9.25 microwatts in an experiment) compared to existing technologies.

“People have been talking about embedding connectivity into everyday objects … for years, but the problem is the cost and power consumption to achieve this,” said Vamsi Talla, chief technology officer of Jeeva Wireless, which plans to market the system within six months. “This is the first wireless system that can inject connectivity into any device with very minimal cost.”

The new system uses “backscatter,” which uses energy from ambient transmissions (from WiFi, for example) to power a passive sensor that encodes and scatter-reflects the signal. (This article explains how ambient backscatter, developed by UW, works.) Backscatter systems, used with RFID chips, are very low cost, but are limited in distance.

So the researchers combined backscatter with a “chirp spread spectrum” technique, used in LoRa (long-range) wireless data-communication systems.

This tiny off-the-shelf spread-spectrum receiver enables extremely-low-power cheap sensors to communicate over long distances. (credit: Dennis Wise/University of Washington)

This new system has three components: a power source (which can be WiFi or other ambient transmission sources, or cheap flexible printed batteries, with an expected bulk cost of 10 to 20 cents each) for a radio signal; cheap sensors (less than 10 cents at scale) that modulate (encode) information (contained in scattered reflections of the signal), and an inexpensive, off-the-shelf spread-spectrum receiver, located as far away as 2.8 kilometers, that decodes the sensor information.

Applications could include, for example, medical monitoring devices that wirelessly transmit information about a heart patient’s condition to doctors; sensor arrays that monitor pollution, noise, or traffic in “smart” cities; and farmers looking to measure soil temperature or moisture, who could affordably blanket an entire field to determine how to efficiently plant seeds or water.

The research team built a contact lens prototype and a flexible epidermal patch that attaches to human skin, which successfully used long-range backscatter to transmit information across a 3300-square-foot building.

The research, which was partially funded by the National Science Foundation, is detailed in an open-access paper presented Sept. 13, 2017 at UbiComp 2017. More information: longrange@cs.washington.edu.

UW (University of Washington) | UW team shatters long-range communication barrier for devices that consume almost no power


Abstract of LoRa Backscatter: Enabling The Vision of Ubiquitous Connectivity

The vision of embedding connectivity into billions of everyday objects runs into the reality of existing communication technologies — there is no existing wireless technology that can provide reliable and long-range communication at tens of microwatts of power as well as cost less than a dime. While backscatter is low-power and low-cost, it is known to be limited to short ranges. This paper overturns this conventional wisdom about backscatter and presents the first wide-area backscatter system. Our design can successfully backscatter from any location between an RF source and receiver, separated by 475 m, while being compatible with commodity LoRa hardware. Further, when our backscatter device is co-located with the RF source, the receiver can be as far as 2.8 km away. We deploy our system in a 4,800 ft2 (446 m2) house spread across three floors, a 13,024 ft2 (1210 m2) office area covering 41 rooms, as well as a one-acre (4046 m2) vegetable farm and show that we can achieve reliable coverage, using only a single RF source and receiver. We also build a contact lens prototype as well as a flexible epidermal patch device attached to the human skin. We show that these devices can reliably backscatter data across a 3,328 ft2 (309 m2) room. Finally, we present a design sketch of a LoRa backscatter IC that shows that it costs less than a dime at scale and consumes only 9.25 &mgr;W of power, which is more than 1000x lower power than LoRa radio chipsets.

Go to Source

Posted in Accelerating Intelligence.


Staying safe online at ‘big school’

Are new secondary school students and their parents ready for the next level of social media?

Go to Source

Posted in BBC Sci Tech.


Undercover reporter confronts spam text message pair

The men boasted about being the biggest distributors of nuisance text messages in the UK.

Go to Source

Posted in BBC Sci Tech.


Amalthea, IIT Gandhinagar

Amalthea ’17

 

read more

Posted in AI & Robotics.


Inconceivable arguments

Stephen Law has new arguments against physicalism (which is, approximately, the view that the account of the world given by physics is good enough to explain everything). He thinks conscious experience can’t be dealt with by physics alone. There is a well-established family of anti-physicalist arguments supporting this view which are based on conceivability; Law adds new cousins to that family, ones which draw on inconceivability and are, he thinks, less vulnerable to some of the counter-arguments brought against the established versions.

What is the argument from conceivability? Law helpfully summarises several versions (his exposition is commendably clear and careful throughout) including the zombie twin argument we’ve often discussed here; but let’s take a classic one about the supposed identity of pain and the firing of C-fibres, a kind of nerve. It goes like this…

1. Pain without C-fibre firing is conceivable
2. Conceivability entails metaphysical possibility (at least in this case)
3. The metaphysical possibility of pain without C-fibre firing entails ?that pain is not identical with C-fibre firing.
C. Pain is not identical with C-fibre firing

(It’s good to see the old traditional C-fibre example still being quoted. It reminds me of long-gone undergraduate days when some luckless fellow student in a tutorial read an essay citing the example of how things look yellow to people with jaundice. Myles Burnyeat, the tutor, gave an erudite history of this jaundice example, tracking it back from the twentieth century to the sixteenth, through mediaeval scholastics, Sextus Empiricus (probably), and many ancient authors. You have joined, he remarked, a long tradition of philosophers who have quoted that example for thousands of years without any of them ever bothering to find out that it is, in fact, completely false. People with jaundice have yellowish skin, but their vision is normal. Of course the inaccuracy of examples about C-fibres and jaundice does not in itself invalidate the philosophical arguments, a point Burnyeat would have conceded with gritted teeth.)

I have a bit of a problem with the notion of metaphysical possibility. Law says that something being conceivable means no incoherence arises when we suppose it, which is fine; but I take it that the different flavours of conceivability/possibility arise from different sets of rules. So something is physically conceivable so long as it doesn’t contradict the laws of physics. A five-kilometre cube of titanium at the North Pole is not something that any plausible set of circumstances is going to give rise to, but nothing about it conflicts with physics, so it’s conceivable.

I’m comfortable, therefore, with physical conceivability, and with logical conceivability, because pretty decent (if not quite perfect) sets of rules for both fields have been set out for us. But what are the laws of metaphysics that would ground the idea of metaphysical conceivability or equally, metaphysical possibility? I’m not sure how many candidates for such laws (other than ones that are already laws of physics, logic, or maths) I can come up with, and I know of no attempt to set them out systematically (a book opportunity for a bold metaphysician there, perhaps). But this is not a show-stopper so long as it is reasonably clear in each case what kind of metaphysical rules we hold ourselves not to be violating.

Conceivability arguments of this kind do help clarify an intuitive feeling that physical events are just not the sort of thing that could also be subjective experiences, firming things up for those who believe in them and sportingly providing a proper target for physicalists.

So what is the new argument? Law begins by noting that in some cases appearance and reality can separate, while in others they cannot. So a substance that appears just like gold, but does not have the right atomic number, is not gold: we could call it fool’s gold.  A medical case where the skin was yellowish but the underlying condition was not jaundice might be fool’s jaundice (jaundice again, but here used unimpeachably). However, can there be fool’s red?  If we’re talking of a red experience it seems not: something that seems red is indeed a red experience whatever underlies it. More strongly still, it seems that the idea of fool’s pain is inconceivable. If what you’re experiencing seems to be pain, then it is pain.

Is that right? There’s evidently something in it, but what is to stop us believing ourselves to be in pain when we’re not? Hypochondriacs may well do that very thing. Law, I suppose, would say that a mistaken belief isn’t enough; there has to be the actual experience of pain. That begins to look as if he’s  in danger of begging the question; if we specify that there’s a real experience of pain, then it’s inconceivable it isn’t real pain? But I think the notions of mistaken pain beliefs and the putative fool’s pain are sufficiently distinct.

The inconceivability argument goes on to suggest that if fool’s pain is inconceivable, but we can conceive of C-fibre firing without pain, then C-fibre firing cannot be identical with pain. Clearly the same argument would apply for various mental experiences other than pain, and for any proposed physical correlate of pain.

Law rebuts explicitly arguments that this is nothing new, or merely a trivial variant on the old argument. I’m happy enough to take it as a handy new argument, worth having in itself; but Law also argues that in some cases it stands up against counter-arguments better than the old one. Notably he mentions an argument by Loar.  This offers an alternative explanation for the conceivability of pain in the absence of C-fibre firing: experience and concepts such as C-fibre firing are dealt with in quite different parts of the brain, and our ability to conceive of one without the other is therefore just a matter if human psychology, from which no deep metaphysical conclusions can be drawn. Law argues that even if Loar’s argument or a similar one is accepted, we still run up against the problem that conceiving of pain without C-fibre firing, we are conceiving of fool’s pain, which the new argument has established in inconceivable.

The case is well made and I think Law is right to claim he has hit on a new and useful argument. Am I convinced? Not really; but my disbelief stems from a more fundamental doubt about whether conceivability and inconceivability can actually tell us about the real world, or merely about our own mental powers.

Perhaps we can look at it in terms of possible worlds. It seems to me that Law’s argument, like the older ones, establishes that we can separate C-fibre firing and pain conceptually; that there are in fact possible worlds in which pain is not C-fibre firing. But I don’t care. I don’t require the identity of pain and C-fibre firing to be true a priori; I’m happy for it to be true only in this world, as an empirical, scientific matter. Of course this opens a whole range of new cans of worms (about which kinds of identity are necessary, for example) whose contents I am not eager to ingest at the moment.

Still, if you’re interested in the topic I commend the draft paper to your attention.

 

 

Posted in Conscious Entities.


Walking DNA nanorobot could deliver a drug to a precise location in your body

DNA nanorobot cargo carrier (artist’s impression) (credit: Ella Maru Studio)

Caltech scientists have developed a “cargo sorting” DNA nanorobot programmed to autonomously “walk” around a surface, pick up certain molecules, and drop them off in designated locations.

The research is described in a paper in the Friday, September 15, 2017 issue of Science.

The major advance in this study is “their methodology for designing simple DNA devices that work in parallel to solve nontrivial tasks,” notes Duke University computer scientist John H. Reif in an article in the same issue of Science.

Such tasks could include synthesizing a drug in a molecular factory or delivering a drug only when a specific signal is present in bloodstreams, say the researchers. “So far, the development of DNA robots has been limited to simple functions,” the researchers note.

Walking nanobots that work in parallel

Conceptual illustration of two DNA nanorobots collectively performing a cargo-sorting task on a DNA origami surface: transporting fluorescent molecules with different colors from initially random locations to ordered destinations. (credit: Demin Liu)

The DNA nanorobot, intended as a proof of concept, has a “leg” with two “feet” for walking, and an “arm” and “hand” for picking up cargo. It also has a segment that can recognize a specific drop-off point and signal to the hand to release its cargo. Each of these building blocks are made of just a few nucleotides (molecules that form DNA) within a single strand of DNA.*

As the robot encounters cargo molecules tethered to pegs, it grabs them with its “hand” components and carries them around (with a 6-nm step size) until it detects the signal of the drop-off point.

Multiple DNA nanorobots independently execute three operations in parallel: [1] cargo pickup, [2] random movement to adjacent stepping stones, and [3] cargo drop-off at ordered locations. (credit: C. Bickel/Science)

In experiments, the nanorobots successfully sorted six randomly scattered molecules into their correct places in 24 hours. The process is slow, but adding more robots to the surface shortened the time it took to complete the task. The very simple robot design utilizes very little chemical energy, according to the researchers.**

“The same system design can be generalized to work with dozens of types of cargos at any arbitrary initial location on the surface,” says lead author Anupama Thubagere. “One could also have multiple robots performing diverse sorting tasks in parallel,” [programmed] like macroscopic robots.”

Future applications

“We don’t develop DNA robots for any specific applications. Our lab focuses on discovering the engineering principles that enable the development of general-purpose DNA robots,” explains Lulu Qian, assistant professor of bioengineering.

“However, it is my hope that other researchers could use these principles for exciting applications, such as synthesizing a therapeutic chemical from its constituent parts in an artificial molecular factory, or sorting molecular components in trash for recycling. Just like electromechanical robots are sent off to faraway places, like Mars, we would like to send molecular robots to minuscule places where humans can’t go, such as the bloodstream.”

Funding was provided by Caltech Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships, the National Science Foundation, and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.

* The key to designing DNA machines is the fact that DNA has unique chemical and physical properties that are known and programmable. A single strand of DNA is made up of four different molecules called nucleotides—abbreviated A, G, C, and T—and arranged in a string called a sequence. These nucleotides bond in specific pairs: A with T, and G with C. When a single strand encounters a “reverse complementary strand” — for example, CGATT meets AATCG —the two strands zip together in the classic double-helix shape.

** Using these chemical and physical principles, researchers can also design “playgrounds,” such as molecular pegboards, to test them on, according to the researchers. In the current work, the DNA robot moves around on a 58-nanometer-by-58-nanometer pegboard on which the pegs are made of single strands of DNA complementary to the robot’s leg and foot. The robot binds to a peg with its leg and one of its feet — the other foot floats freely. When random molecular fluctuations cause this free foot to encounter a nearby peg, it pulls the robot to the new peg and its other foot is freed. This process continues with the robot moving in a random direction at each step.


Abstract of A cargo-sorting DNA robot

Two critical challenges in the design and synthesis of molecular robots are modularity and
algorithm simplicity.We demonstrate three modular building blocks for a DNA robot that
performs cargo sorting at themolecular level. A simple algorithm encoding recognition between
cargos and their destinations allows for a simple robot design: a single-stranded DNA with
one leg and two foot domains for walking, and one arm and one hand domain for picking up and
dropping off cargos.The robot explores a two-dimensional testing ground on the surface of
DNA origami, picks up multiple cargos of two types that are initially at unordered locations, and
delivers them to specified destinations until all molecules are sorted into two distinct piles.
The robot is designed to perform a random walk without any energy supply. Exploiting this
feature, a single robot can repeatedly sort multiple cargos. Localization on DNA origami allows
for distinct cargo-sorting tasks to take place simultaneously in one test tube or for multiple
robots to collectively perform the same task.

Go to Source

Posted in Accelerating Intelligence.