Coolest University Tech Lab Projects in the Works

NW writes "While universities like MIT, Berkeley and CMU don't tend to shout as loudly about their latest tech innovations as do Google, Cisco and other big vendors, their results are no less impressive in what they could mean for faster, more secure and more useful networks, computers, etc. Here's a good roundup of 25 of them, from studies on putting T-Rays to use in computers to advancing wireless to the next level to outsmarting terrorists on the Web."

Comments

Skull

[Ruie]

Of course, for now you need to wear a funky headband to make it work (the headband "uses laser diodes to send near-infrared light through the forehead at a relatively shallow depth â" only two to three centimeters â" to interact with the brain's frontal lobe," according to Tufts.)

2-3 cm seems to be rather large, especially since it has to go through the skull - can anyone comment on this ?

Re:Skull

[evanbd]

Step 1: Take generic TV / Stereo remote, complete with low power infrared LED (not even a laser).

Step 2: Put hand over LED.

Step 3: Place remote and hand directly in front of detector.

Step 4: Observe that enough IR gets through your hand for the remote to work.

Of course, I have no idea how much IR is needed to have an effect on the brain, or how well it propagates through your skull. But if the answers are "not much" and "more than zero" then this is plausible.

Re:Skull

[evwah]

Step 5: cut a hole in the box

Re:Skull

[Grym]

2-3 cm seems to be rather large, especially since it has to go through the skull - can anyone comment on this ?

I can believe it. In the area of the forehead they are discussing, there is a large hollow space known as the frontal sinus. Even a simple doctor's penlight (which is about as bright as a single LED) can be used medically in what's called "frontal sinus transillumination" to check for fluid or pus in this space. It seems quite reasonable that a much brighter light could penetrate enough to visualize even further.

-Grym

55 saves gas

[tirerim]

Number 23 claims that driving more slowly due to cell phone use costs fuel. That's patently ridiculous -- on the highway, driving more slowly saves fuel, which is why highway speed limits were set to 55 during the last oil crisis. Driving while on the phone is still a bad idea, but not because you're going slower.

Re:55 saves gas

[GumphMaster]

Driving constantly at slower speed definitely saves fuel for the single vehicle. Driving with an erratic, typically slower, speed because you are not paying attention while on the phone will increase fuel consumption; accelerating on and off is wasteful. Further, traffic is not a single vehicle but an aggregate of many vehicles. In your phone induced daze, you are also slowing traffic around you, which then has to accelerate to jockey into position, overtake and regain highway speed; also wasteful.

Re:55 saves gas

[jmcnaught]

I think society would be best served by city planning that makes it easier and quicker to get around by walking, biking and mass transit than by car. Making it easier to drive around isn't the answer. In my city, the city council solves all transportation issues by widening roads to make room for more cars and adding new parking lots. Cities should be layed out so that nobody lives outside of walking distance from places to play, shop or catch a bus. Reduce the need for cars, and our neighbourhoods can have less pavement and more green space. Downtown the parking lots can be built up and reclaimed as productive spaces or turned into parks to play and relax. Cities with fewer cars would also be safer. I ride my bicycle every day, and almost every day I feel in danger from cars. Drunk drivers, drivers on their cell phones and hot shots that drive too fast can easily wipe me out with the smallest mistake. It should be safe for our children and pets to run around in the streets. Cars are ridiculous in general. Using machines with triple digit horsepower that weigh tonnes to move 100-200 pound people around. It's like using a jack hammer on finishing nails. And it's not as if anyone can claim ignorance to the impact of cars on the environment these days. We all know what's happening, and still so many of us place our hopes in hybrids and new fuel sources. The type of transition it would take to get all cars off of fossil fuels would take years, possibly decades. But just about every house has a bike in the basement or garage, and a decent brand new bike can be purchased for under $500. Myself, I'm all for reducing the speed limit inside cities. Make it 30 km/h. It would be foolish to get rid of all cars. They're still useful for moving stuff around in. But most of the driving these days is just for moving people and no stuff. Mostly single people driving the same routes every day to and from work. I don't have kids, but I don't understand how people can reconcile caring about their children's futures and driving their cars.

Re:55 saves gas

[imsabbel]

Sadly, the aerodynamic laws have changed little lince 72.

55 vs 75 makes an easy 10-15% difference in fuel consumption. Just try it out, both over a 10 or 20 km with cruise control.

Re:55 saves gas

[BKX]

Why do people always spout this crap? The most efficient speed will ALWAYS be the bottom speed of your top gear. In 90% of cars today this is, and likely always will be, 45-50 mph. Of course, this assumes you drive at a constant speed. Hypermilers will tell you that you should accelerate at 75% throttle (for most cars), in the manual recommended gear (automatics may require slightly less power or special tricks for correct upshifting) until you reach about 55mph. Then put in the clutch (or transmission into neutral) and coast until the bottom of your top gear. Then accelerate at 75% throttle to 55mph. Then coast again. Repeat. This the most effecient. Wind resistance prevents the most efficient speed from going higher than around 55mph, no matter what you do about gears.

T-Rays, cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny that "terahertz rays" are somehow considered "not catchy". Thus, promoting their usage had to start with their re-branding as T-Rays, which has more in common with the T-Rex than the terahertz idea. It's part of the work of the scientist today to think of a Hollywood-like publicity poster and catchy phrases in order to get grants.

Re:T-Rays, cool!

[sweet_petunias_full_]

Well see, the thing with the T-rays is that if we can aim them towards the terrorists then hopefully we can "take a big bite out of crime" so to speak, or, if it's not like a T-Rex and it's more like a T-cell then at least we can cause them some sort of cancer. If we're lucky we'll give them a big whopping brain tumor and eventually our researchers will be able to outsmart them.

Maybe not.

I can beat that...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bulk of searches (80%) proved to be informational, with the other 20% split between navigational and transactional. The researchers used an algorithm that they say classified searches with a 74% accuracy rate. "

I have a better algorithm that achieves 80% accuracy, verses their 74%....

    int QueryTypeClassifier(char *str)
    {
        return INFORMATIONAL;
    }

I better starting working on the research paper before those conference deadlines hit.

Nail on the head

[RAMMS EIN]

"While universities like MIT, Berkeley and CMU don't tend to shout as loudly about their latest tech innovations as do Google, Cisco and other big vendors, their results are no less impressive in what they could mean for faster, more secure and more useful networks, computers, etc."

I feel that hits the nail on the head. A lot of impressive innovations come out of universities, but it's the corporate world that makes most of the hype. Sometimes, they promote inventions that originally came from universities. Sometimes, they promote inferior technology to what already exists. But it's usually the hyped technology that wins. I think we should be paying more attention to university research.

Re:Nail on the head

[moosesocks]

Yes, but the OP's choice of universities is mildly amusing to say the least.

MIT blows its own horn very loudly. Hell, they do a better job of marketing and hyping themselves than Apple do.

The Media Lab might not produce a great deal of "legitimate" scientific output, but it does a fantastic job of capturing the imagination of the public.

Their magazine also serves as a fantastic vehicle for bolstering their own reputation.

This isn't all necessarily a bad thing, although you've got to acknowledge that most of the "top" universities owe much of reputations by shrewdly marketing themselves to the people providing the research grants.

R&D are two different things

[wintermute1974]

Generally:
Universities do research.
Corporations do design.

You might be pleasantly distracted by the shiny toys that corporations make, but those toys rely on the knowledge gained in university labs.