LEDs Becoming the Light Wave of the Future

The Economist.com explains in the online article “An even brighter idea” (found at: http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7904236) on September 21, 2006 that the generalized commercial use of light-emitting diodes is closer than one might think.

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) emit monochromatic light with no radiation, ultraviolet rays, or infrared light. Composed of two kinds of semiconductors: the n-type, which are negatively charged electrons, and the p-type, which are positively charged “holes” in which electrons can join, LEDs function when electricity is applied causing electrons to flow from opposites sides into the junction. The electrons pair and emit energy in the form of light. By varying the materials of the semiconductors, the properties of the emitted light can be tweaked. Adjusting proportions of red, green, blue, and white LEDs allows users to modify the light to their liking. Compared to traditional incandescent light bulbs, which are only 5% energy efficient, LED lights take up less space, are shock resistant, and are extremely energy-efficient, lasting up to a decade.

In 1962, Nick Holonyak of General Electric learned that semiconductors had the ability to produce infrared light. George Craford invented the first yellow LED, and he joined a company called Monsanto in 1967 where LEDs were mass-produced for the first time for calculators and watch lights. The development of blue and green LEDs with gallium nitride began in the late ‘60s by the Radio Corporation of America. When the research didn’t yield many practical results, most scientists gave up. It wasn’t until the late 1980s, when Nagoya University’s Isamu Akasaki made steps towards the first p-type semiconductor with gallium nitride, yet it was still too slow and the light too dim to be practical. Researcher Shuji Nakamura found why and improved the speed of the positive-negative light-emitting jointures, creating the first bright blue LED in 1993, and green and white LED soon after.

Over 40 years of persistence on the part of many different players developed LEDs into what they are today. In 1971, Monsanto printed an advertisement claiming that one day LEDs will probably be used for car headlights, an unimaginable notion at the time. Today, Craford says we are only a couple of years away from such a notion becoming reality. Craford is a great example of a man’s faith in the science potential. Imagine if nobody after Radio Corporation of America had come and picked up the pieces. Some just did not recognize the importance of the science. Yet, it took a man possessing simply interest in the subject – curiosity – to get the ball rolling in the 1980s. Nakamura had no PhD and never had anything published when he began his study. Also, previous discoveries building upon others to allow opportunities for future scientists became extremely imperative. Without traits as perseverance, conviction of work, and daring courage, the strides made in LED technology would not have been made.

I am amazed at the wonderful progress of researchers since the 1970s. LED efficiency has improved ten times every decade. Yet, I worry that researchers, in any field, have the justified tendency to repeat the same cycle of scrutiny as they did in the past. For example, the new OLEDs (organic LEDs) are receiving the same criticism that was once given to LEDs not too long ago. The projected benefits of LEDs are amazing. It can save money on electric bills and reduce energy demand and environmental pollution. My opinion is that researchers really need to put their best foot forward to see how real, practical, mainstream use of LEDs could be integrated into society. As Fred Schubert, a professor at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, says, “As researchers, we always have to be ready for surprises.”

Tackling the Genius of Mr. Einstein

On September 18, 2006, BBC News reporter Jonathan Amos informs in the online article “Dead stars provide Einstein test’” (found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5356910.stm) that scientists have found validity in Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity by studying a set of inactive stars.

The concept of General Relativity explains that objects of different mass are attracted to one another because of the ability of space to curve. Professor Michael Kramer of the University of Manchester’s Jodrell Bank Observatory led a team of researchers who observed a double pulsar system of two dead stars situated 2,000 light-years from Earth. These stars ran out of nuclear energy and exploded to leave behind sections of their neutron cores. As the cores orbit around each other, they discharge columns of radio waves that can be detected from Earth, acting like galactic space clocks. By studying the effects of each core’s radio waves in the other’s warped space-time, the scientists set up an ideal test for Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. Measuring the delay of the radio beams that pass through the curved space of the other pulsating core, the researchers proved Einstein’s calculations within a margin of 0.05-percent.

Since its publication in 1916, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity has stood very firm in its findings for almost a century. He predicted that a double pulsar system, like the one studied by Kramer and his team, should also discharge gravitational waves as the two cores slowly come together. Though indirect proof of this concept was found – the two stars are attracted to each other at 7mm a day – there is no direct evidence to support the stars emitting gravitational pulls. The preparation for more long-term studies is evident to the scientists. Kramer realizes that Einstein’s theory most likely needs to be updated due to encompass large-scale application and quantum mechanics. Time, literally, seems to not be on the side of Kramer and his team. Three years since the discovery of their double pulsar system has finally yielded them with results, and they have decades of solid theory that they must attempt to alter. The motivation to detect these elusive gravitational waves in places such as black holes, and to find the “breaking point,” as Kramer put it, empowers these scientists to crack the fundamentals of Einstein’s long held theory. Even very well-respected scientific professionals are taking the chance on the theories they learned and trying to improve and expound them. Kramer and his team want to continually dig objectively deeper beyond the surface of science, and the fact that they did such a test as this shows their determination to make sure knowledge is accurately supported and valid.

I found this research extremely interesting, as it finally allowed me to understand one of Einstein’s concepts, which often enough are presented to students in methods seem to boil extremely complex ideas into simple and abstract formulas and theories. However, I find it hard to embrace the full accomplishments of this discovery, as much of the public commonly does, as physical astronomy does not necessarily apply directly to our everyday lives in any pragmatic manner. Yet, it is rare that one hears of scientists confronting a well-respected intelligence from history. At the same time as it is refreshing and unexpected, such a confrontation cannot help but raise the issue of how we should initially trust what we have been taught. This serves as a good reminder to always keep asking questions and asking “why?”

The Source of All Meaning

Elli Leadbeater reported on September 6, 2006 in the BBC News online article “Strange ducks shape brain science” (found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/5321054.stm) that researches have confidently found the brain region responsible for the storage of meaning.

After 150 years, the argument of which sector of the brain takes responsibility for the processing of meaning has been settled by researchers at the University of Manchester. They believe the temporal pole, the area just under the ears, is the area of brain tissue that stores meaning. Professor Matthew Lambon Ralph and his team have focused on the temporal pole as the culprit before, evidenced on scans of semantic dementia patients. Such patients who cannot clearly differentiate between the concepts of “bird” and “dog,” for example, have damaged or lost tissue from the temporal pole. However, concrete results were hard to find as these patients probably had other brain damage. Researches thus performed on people with damage-free brains ‘transcranial magnetic stimulation’ or ‘TMS,’ which uses magnetic field pulses to tire sections of the brain so it works improperly for a short period of time. In the normal patients, similar symptoms of the dementia patients were mildly displayed, understanding concepts at 10-percent slower rate. Lambon Ralph states that sufferers from abnormal temporal pole function hazily forget more and more details of word definitions or concepts over time.

Scientists researching abstract data as human reaction and brain psychology have the daunting task of finding true quantitative statistics for experiments that have the possibility for an infinite array of results. Perhaps this is why such as debate over the issue of where meaning is stored in the mind has been stretched out for 150 years. Originally, many scientists looked at the Wernicke’s area of the brain as the center for meaning computation. Though close to the temporal pole region, research has yet to be done on Wernicke’s area using TMS. Scientists studying within this field must be creative in their persistence in looking at alternate pathways to solutions or explanations, especially over centuries of focus on the same issue. Admirable as well is that the University of Manchester research team continues to put their findings to pragmatic use, working with speech therapists to help patients suffering from semantic dementia.

Advances in the field of mental illness, such as the confirmation of the temporal pole’s function, truly display the persistence of those wanting to find cures and answers. Personally, I know such a discovery can alter the emotions of any dementia patient’s family greatly. My grandfather slowly degenerated, in part, to dementia last year. I cannot help but wonder if such techniques as TMS could have been used to better diagnose or help treat his brain malfunctions. Families of patients in various stages of brain damage and diseases should be comforted to know that they can see progress being made in a field where immediate improvements are hard to witness. Long-term science should also be seen as beneficial in the long-run, as important strides can still be made, though the public might not see or be affected by such studies in their lifetime.

Advances in Fighting Anthrax

On August 28, 2006, BBC News reported in the online article “Scientists find ‘anthrax blocker’” (found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5284996.stm) that researchers have created an inhibitor to aid in the current treatment of individuals infected by the deadly anthrax disease.

Anthrax is an infectious toxin that invades the body’s through viruses, bacteria, or spores. Such simple modes of intoxication, such as inhalation, have made the disease famous in its uses for bioterrorism purposes. Current treatment for anthrax consists of antibiotics which can only prevent the fatal effects of the pathogens from progressing faster. The toxin’s structure can change and transform, making it much harder for a consistent antibiotic treatment to effectively work. Easy methods of mutation by persons in a laboratory setting also present an additional fallibility to current antibiotics and add to the uncertainty of more unknown bioterrorist threats. Thus, the death rate of those infected by anthrax is seventy-five percent even with the availability and use of antibiotics. To overcome the obstacle of any antibiotic resistance, the newly discovered inhibitor attaches to the same bodily receptors at multiple sites where the anthrax pathogen links itself, allowing any antibiotics to attach to the inhibitor instead of the mutating pathogen. Called a polyvalent inhibitor, the blocker makes similar “receptor-binding peptides” in order to be more effective in fighting the toxin.

Though extensive research and development has been done regarding this new ‘anthrax blocker,’ scientists and experts all agree that although benefits can be found, more work must be performed. Dr. Ravi Kane of New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute states that using the new blocker in conjunction with current antibiotic treatments will likely aid anthrax victims by counteracting the poisonous pathogen. Observing rats as test subjects, Oxford University scientists have carefully tried different variations of the inhibitor to determine the best structure possible without any ill side affects to the animals. The next step for researchers is to branch out their findings with the application of the blocker to human beings. Even more imperative is the scientists’ role of planning and precision in order to explore uncharted territory without severely risking patients or worsening the deteriorative process of anthrax in people tested. However, scientists also find other positive uses for such a discovery. Dr. Shiranee Sriskandan of London’s Imperial College points out that the inhibitor can be used in new ways to find activity that would help prevent the spread of other toxins such as SARS, influenza, and Aids. Sriskandan is careful to warn that the inhibitor at this point can only aid current anthrax treatments and vaccination, not solve the problem. At this stage of the fight against anthrax, scientists must possess vigilance and steadfastness to see if real-life cases can be effectively treated, which could take decades to determine.

Widespread concern for such rapidly-spreading ailments like anthrax and HIV-Aids seem to rise and fall with the waves of publicity from news coverage of a dangerous event concerning the disease. The public spotlight on anthrax as a bioterrorist weapon in recent years had put a higher importance on the advances made in treating the fatal infection. Such a discovery illustrates a great testament to the consistency of scientists and the field of medicine to keep discussing and exploring the issues that may be disregarded or pushed aside by the general knowledge of the public. This is a reminder that there is always space into which our scientific facts can expand. We do not always know everything in practicing healthcare, and there still exists many realms of unexplored ground in innumerable aspects of medicine.