Introducing Magnet-Responsive Memory Foam

Roland Piquepaille writes "The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has recently reported that two research teams have developed a new porous foam of an alloy that changes shape when exposed to a magnetic field. The NSF states that this new material is able to remember its original shape after it's been deformed by a physical or magnetic force. This polycrystalline nickel-manganese-gallium alloy is potentially cheaper and lighter than other materials currently used in devices ranging from sonar to precision valves. It also could be used to design biomedical pumps without moving parts and even for space applications and automobiles."

Comments

Space Time Continium

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

*ahem*

a seemingly unstoppable cyborg assassin who has been sent back from the year 2029
Just on track, I believe.

Moving parts

[michaelmalak]

biomedical pumps without moving partsThat should read "without rubbing parts". And even with that increased language precision, we still don't know the answer to the important question, which is whether this willow allow pumps "without fatiguing parts". (I suspect this will not be possible without biological-like microscopic self-healing.)

Re:Pumps with no moving parts?

[BigHungryJoe]

applying a magnetic field at 90 degrees to the current as per high school physics

you went to a much better high school than I did

Re:Holy specious conclusions, Batman

[rbanffy]

The world would be a better place if people were given proper scientific education.

You know... That where you observe facts, formulate hypotheses and try to invalidate them through experiments.

Thanks for expanding my point

[Kupfernigk]

It wasn't a jibe at Republicans. It was a jibe at a world in which the most advanced technological power can produce people who don't seem to have the least idea of the basis on which that power rests, and don't seem to care. It may be that if GWB had had a proper scientific education he might have tended to, say, believe the weapons inspectors and his own military rather than the spin merchants, though we can't be sure. It might be that he would, say, read Scientific American or National Geographic, and this would inspire him to leave a legacy of a serious attempt to solve world problems through the encouragement of science and technology

I'd be almost equally happy if future politicians got a really good grounding in history, instead of being told that it is irrelevant.

Re:Thanks for expanding my point

[Torvaun]

I have no issue with both sides being taught in schools, as long as we make sure that only the one that conforms to the scientific method gets called science. Intelligent design can go in a religion or philosophy class.

Re:Thanks for expanding my point

[ArcherB]

I have no issue with both sides being taught in schools, as long as we make sure that only the one that conforms to the scientific method gets called science. Intelligent design can go in a religion or philosophy class.

I don't know if I would even go that far. All most Christians want is that the theory of evolution be taught as a theory. As a Christian student, evolution fascinated me. I always felt that a slow evolution of species was much more a miracle than God simply saying "let there be X... and there was". I always wanted to know what happened when (and before... God is timeless after all) God said what he said, and evolution provided that to me. But too many science teachers wannabe scientists (like here on /.) use evolutional theory as proof that God doesn't exist. I see it as proof that God DOES exist as the odds of each evolutionary step happening as it does are so slim to be qualified as a miracle, IMHO.

So I have nothing against the theory of evolution being taught as long as it's taught as a theory. My reasoning for that is nothing religious, but because sometimes, science is wrong. Even Einstein rejected the idea of the "Big Bang" as he rejected the idea of an expanding universe. He told Georges Lemaître (a Catholic Priest, btw) "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.". Einstein, of course, had to revise his theories once Hubble proved that the Universe was expanding.

My point is that science evolves just like anything else. What is "fact" today is backward-thinking-junk-science tomorrow. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Evolution has about as much to do with disproving religion as the Big Bang, and I don't want it being taught as such. Teaching Darwin is fine. Teaching Darwin as a counter to religion is just wrong.