The structures made by block copolymers can be either functional (or a template to make something functional) or used as a mask (like a photoresist) for chemical etching (so it is, in a way, a replacement for a photoresist). In one of the examples from this paper, the block copolymers are used to template the formation platinum nanowires; these could be used either as a functional structure or as a mask allowing one to etch a very fine striped pattern into the surface. The unique feature of using microwaves is that it speeds up the self-organization of the block copolymer, allowing it to realize a minimum energy configuration (i.e. the desired pattern); other methods have generally required a substantial period of time to fully organize. This method manages to complete the organization in under 4 minutes, which is something that the ITRS (published by the Semiconductor Industry Association, see: http://www.itrs.net/ ) has stated is a necessary step for the commercial implementation of block copolymer lithography. The paper, published in ACS Nano, really goes into details. If you/you institution is not a subscriber, you can still access the Supporting Information free of charge which includes dozens of pictures & SEM images and a video.
(rohtua ht4 eht m'i)
(oops... didn't mean to do that last one anon.)
I think that these images highlight the value of aesthetics in science, especially for the purposes of communication. The scientists rendering these photos make choices of perspective and colour schemes that dramatically effect whether it communicates the message. Science, after all, is not always merely about facts, but about a message. And it is important for scientists to be able to communicate those facts.
While some may bemoan the lack of scale bars, it must be kept in mind that these images are made to communicate an idea. Rest assured that they likely have hundreds of copies of the same or similar structures with scale bars in abundance... and this too is an aesthetic choice.
I think that the greater question should lie in asking ourselves as scientists, is it the "prettiest" paper that gets published in Nature or Science? It seems that quite often there is a direct correlation between the aesthetic quality of figures and graphs and the likelihood of publication in more prestigious journals. Interesting science with far reaching consequences can easily be passed up if not presented in an attractive manner. I think that may be the greater question - do aesthetics applied to scientific data create biases? Or is it merely a more effective means of communicating a message?
Actually, German researchers have reported that DNA vaccines may be deliverable via a tattoo gun. Whether they use a plasmid or a virus of whatever sort (not that deadly really) to deliver the DNA is still another question, but doing it effectively on a rather large scale would become feasible with this technique.
The original journal articles for those interested in more than a press release:
Efficient Oxygen Reduction Fuel Cell Electrocatalysis on Voltammetrically Dealloyed Pt-Cu-Co Nanoparticles
(Strasser et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200703331
Electrocatalysis on Bimetallic Surfaces: Modifying Catalytic Reactivity for Oxygen Reduction by Voltammetric Surface Dealloying
(Koh & Strasser) http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0742784
To fully answer that question would take a whole course on organometallic chemistry to explain, but it has to do with the d-electron configuration of the platinum, (d8), which results in organometallic compounds which can be either square planar or octahedral. The ability to switch between these structures (and related oxidation states) allows for transitions and bonding between the states which allows for the creation of intermediates necessary for catalytic reactions. Bulk platinum (i.e. as a heterogeneous catalyst) also has d-electrons available at the metal surface which can form bonding and anti-bonding ( = bond breaking) bonds with small molecules. Essentially when it is reacting with, say, hydrogen gas, the H2 adsorbs onto the surface and, each atom forming a bond with one Pt atom's d-orbital.
Actually, this article seems to miss the point. Ramanath's research on this was just published in Nature (abstract) and actually has far more application to bonding chip microstructures than to web-slinging!
Here we harness MNLs (molecular nanolayers) at thin-film interfaces at temperatures higher than the MNL desorption temperature to fortify copper-dielectric interfaces relevant to wiring in micro- and nano-electronic devices. Annealing Cu/MNL/SiO2 structures at 400-700 C results in interfaces that are five times tougher than pristine Cu/SiO2 structures, yielding values exceeding approx20 J m-2
While I do somewhat agree with the sentiment of the above poster that 'there are more important things that we could be working on', I think that it would be fair to remember that not ever scientist is suited to work on every project - to work on "cancer" (as it is so broadly put) you need certain kinds of scientists - i.e. biochemists, molecular & cellular biologists, organic & medicinal chemists, and pharmacists in order to do direct research on cancer. This fellow (G. Ramanath) is a materials engineer, and thus would be ill equipped to doing cancer-curing research. However, it should be noted that the ability to DO cancer research is only made possible by discoveries in other areas of science - physics (radiation therapy, imaging methods), engineering (devising machines to test for and to visualize cancerous growths), chemistry (new ways to make and deliver drugs), materials science (better materials to do all of the above!) , computing science (imaging, modelling), and biochemistry & biology (understanding cellular processes) by those who are not aiming to cure diseases, but whom seek to advance the limits of human knowledge and understanding. Creating a better glue just happens to be one such advance that may help indirectly.
The other salient questions are: What was their sample size? Did they test only one bottle of each flavour? What analytical method did they use? Were the samples protected from elevated temperatures? The standard iodometric titration for ascorbic acid is not so easy, usually classes of second year university analytical chemistry students only have about a 60% success rate in the determination of ascorbic acid in solution, at levels considerably higher than 70 ppm.
First year chemistry students at UBC do an iodometric titration for vitamin C (Experiment 14), and it usually works fairly well (I've been a TA for the course). The titration itself is actually quite easy, however the endpoint can be somewhat difficult to determine. Generally juices do have vitamin C in excess of the amount stated on the label - as my students have found - because it tends to slowly degrade with time due to its redox activity. This is not always the result of spiking, as sometimes they simply understate the value present to give the minimum value that would be present at the expiry date.
Also, I would doubt that the authorities in NZ relied solely on the students' data. They would have simply used the student's data as the starting point that would inform them that there is a problem. Several other methods are available to determine the content of Vitamin C in juices, in particular HPLC based methods or others which tend to be much more accurate.
Well, being a chemist, making a few new molecules in my undergrad thesis was a very cool thing to do, of course now I have to do it all the time, but every once in a while you make something really cool.
Shaving sans cream is way better. I usually just shave in the shower. I take a small plastic mirror coated with some soap (keeps it from fogging up) and go for it with a Mach 3. Works great. Shaving cream just irritates my skin too much.
Kids have a genuine need for real toys and mud and water and sand to play with. If all they ever interact with is a computer, not only will they be more likely to become overweight, they won't have a single learned concept in physics.
Not intending to be funny here, but this really sounds like Xerox had one of those didn't-work-but-we'll-sell-it-anyway accidents. Maybe they were just trying to make some nice cyan or magenta ink and suddenly, 'oh my... it faded! It wasn't supposed to do that. I wonder... maybe we could sell it?'
On the other hand, there have been people working on photochromism for UV-activated switches recently for light based memory systems (quite a buzz among some materials chemists). Maybe they picked up on the idea from that... perhaps they did it on purpose from the start.
In science our primary means of communication are words. Because of that, we need to have some degree of stability in the definitions of the words that we are using. At the same time, we (scientists) are constantly encountering new phenomena which can challenge our current definitions and systems of classification. Much of the same problem can be seen in biology: when taxonomists were originally dividing living organisms into families, species, and genuses, they had no genetic information available - they based their classifications on the structures present. However now many species have had their relations reassigned based on genetics - this means new names which better line up with the facts that are now known. Still, not everything must be changed; it is not always necessary.
Much the same has happened with physics, chemistry, and astronomy. In chemistry, the term "dative bond" has been all but replaced by alternative words. Some (older chemists) still use it, however it is a word that many disfavour. (And personally I prefer its use to some of the more clumsy longer names given.) In astronomy, "planet" was originally the name given to "wandering stars," yet we still use the term planet to describe them. Admittedly a case could be made for changing our definition, but I think that subclasses are possily a better way to go. Most of us have accepted the term "Gas Giant" for some time, and it in no way lessens the planetary status of such giants. Perhaps the idea of Dwarf Planets will gain similar acceptance?
Frankly though, I am not entirely sure that size is always the best way to categorize anything (despite our human inclination to do so)... perhaps composition or habitability might be better? (although this will be of limited use if we're never bother to visit them) I could easily be persuaded to describe pluto as an "icy planet"... or Earth as an "M-class planet."
If you were using something like indigo, you would be using a perfectly legal, public domain ink - one of the ones in the "5,000 years old" category. However nowadays much research and development goes into creating new inks. I worked at one such company's research centre, let's call it Company X, for one of my co-ops. Creating a new ink was serious business. So hopefully this can be an overview of what I learned.
In order to create a "clone" ink, you have to match the colours, as most printers are designed to use a certain colour space, which must be matched by the inks used - a mismatch of colours means that your photos won't look quite right. Certain chemical structures absorb light at different wavelengths, and have different absorption patterns. You need to match it very closely, otherwise a Brand Name print and a Knock-Off will look different depending on the light that it is viewed under (Fluorescent vs Sunlight & Incandescent lights). The easiest way to do this is to match the structure of the dye very closely, or at least by finding a related dye that has the same absorption spectrum. Furthermore, the ink has to stick to the surface well enough, be fade-resistant (i.e. not break down with exposure to sunlight), and ideally easy to make. The chemist's job is to design and make said new dyes so that the new dye molecule - and just as importantly the process used to make it - can be patented.
Formulations are another part of the patent. I don't know if you've ever smelled the difference between a Canon brand ink cartridge and a clone (I get mine from piloshop.ca), but they smell very different. Piloshop's ink reeks of what I am fairly sure is ethylene glycol (the price of cheapness). Not only does one have to match the colour with the right chemical dye (or combination of them), one must also make sure that they are properly dissolved, dispersed, have the right consistency, and so forth. Bad formulations lead to ink that chips off, or steaking on the page. This is much like the pharmaceutical industry where it is not just the drug that you use, but what other things you throw in to make it work and be absorbed by the body. (E.g. a certain widely-used drug is sold as the citrate salt to make it work better.)
As for violating the DCMA, you've forgotten what the D stands for: digital. This is chemical. And every company out there is testing their competitor's chemical products. Whether it's a battery company, a drug company, or a plastics company. Every product needs a benchmark, and chances are it was made by the other guys. It can actually be quite simple to find out what some of the chemical components are, however the beauty of what HP's chemists have done is that they've managed to create a simple fingerprint-type comparisson test that uses a relatively small amount of dye. And at a dozen dyes a week, it sounds like it works well.
Alright here it is: we build a big "laser" and blast the planet/pluton/dwarf to smithereens. No Pluto = no controversy. All can, and will, be happy then. We can even get it a memorial plaque. It could say something like this:
In memory of Pluto, 1930-2006 Beloved 9th planet of our solar system, dwarf planet, and now intercosmic dust, we will remember you...
Oddly enough, the people at Christianity Today would agree with you that it's morally wrong to censor movies in such a manner as was done to those movies.
"Movies--even bad ones--are works of art, created by artists with a certain vision of what they want to communicate--and how they want to communicate it. And as works of art, films should remain in their original forms, untouched, unedited, unsanitized. If a particular film's content is too objectionable to certain viewers, those viewers shouldn't watch that film. Simple as that."
I recall (hopefully correctly) a few years ago a company producing a type of lithium batteries (MoLi) had a cell phone containing one of their batteries allegedly explode over in asia while a person was using their phone. The result was that their share price dropped drastically, and they were subsequently bought out by a rival company. It was later suggested that the incident had been faked or falsely reported by someone working for said rival company - which had used the ploy to take over or subvert the other company.
I wouldn't be suprised if this explosion was caused on purpose by some competitor of Dell's. Just read the way that the article is written:
"For the record, this is a Dell machine," notes Guilhem. "It is only a matter of time until such an incident breaks out on a plane," he suggests.
Guilhem managed to catch all the action in these amazing pictures.
This is really great. Because it runs on methanol, it's going to be fairly affordable (at least for short trips to places without any electrical power and potentially very easy to refill - Methanol is also sold as "Wood Alcohol" at your local hardware store. The only real question is the concentration. Most DMFCs (Direct Methanol Fuel Cells) need the methanol to be watered down. The best that I've seen are 99.5% (it had to use a means of recycling the water produced, as the methanol feed can't be more than 70% for electrochemical reasons otherwise) and 20-30%, however in research one generally is trying for 10% at best (I've done 3 work terms of research in fuel cell technologies - as a chemist). Usually at such high concentrations the methanol starts to seep across the polymer membrane, and cutting the voltage. It's one of the big problems with DMFCs, as having to dilute the methanol means that the reservoir gets bigger and more inconvenient. So they might not be too keen to let people mix their own...
The question is going to be whether, like some inkjet printers, others will be able to make cheaper versions of the refilling cartriges. After all, they're just holding methanol and water - not very dangerous, or explosive, and the flammability is fairly low - but drink it and you might go blind. Their expressed concern in the article is smoking and fuming when overheating, but unless it's 100% methanol, or the cell had a very high power output (with lots of heat being generated), I couldn't see it being a problem. Even in the lab I've never seen methanol smoke - it just boils or evaporates very quickly.
One question to those who know more about computers than me: how much power does an average laptop use? I'm curious to work out what kind of efficiency they're getting with their cells.
Science has shown us over the years that the minority of our population that has left handed DNA are just as good as the rest of us. Despite this the scientific establishment has continued to discriminate against them.
We have to stop discriminating based on the twists of our DNA.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll add that anyone can access the Supporting Information free of charge. It includes several images and figures, and a short video of the procedure.
.S.P)
(rohtua ht4 eht m'I
The structures made by block copolymers can be either functional (or a template to make something functional) or used as a mask (like a photoresist) for chemical etching (so it is, in a way, a replacement for a photoresist). In one of the examples from this paper, the block copolymers are used to template the formation platinum nanowires; these could be used either as a functional structure or as a mask allowing one to etch a very fine striped pattern into the surface. The unique feature of using microwaves is that it speeds up the self-organization of the block copolymer, allowing it to realize a minimum energy configuration (i.e. the desired pattern); other methods have generally required a substantial period of time to fully organize. This method manages to complete the organization in under 4 minutes, which is something that the ITRS (published by the Semiconductor Industry Association, see: http://www.itrs.net/ ) has stated is a necessary step for the commercial implementation of block copolymer lithography. The paper, published in ACS Nano, really goes into details. If you /you institution is not a subscriber, you can still access the Supporting Information free of charge which includes dozens of pictures & SEM images and a video.
(rohtua ht4 eht m'i)
(oops... didn't mean to do that last one anon.)
I think that these images highlight the value of aesthetics in science, especially for the purposes of communication. The scientists rendering these photos make choices of perspective and colour schemes that dramatically effect whether it communicates the message. Science, after all, is not always merely about facts, but about a message. And it is important for scientists to be able to communicate those facts.
While some may bemoan the lack of scale bars, it must be kept in mind that these images are made to communicate an idea. Rest assured that they likely have hundreds of copies of the same or similar structures with scale bars in abundance... and this too is an aesthetic choice.
I think that the greater question should lie in asking ourselves as scientists, is it the "prettiest" paper that gets published in Nature or Science? It seems that quite often there is a direct correlation between the aesthetic quality of figures and graphs and the likelihood of publication in more prestigious journals.
Interesting science with far reaching consequences can easily be passed up if not presented in an attractive manner. I think that may be the greater question - do aesthetics applied to scientific data create biases? Or is it merely a more effective means of communicating a message?
After 3-6 years of labouriously slaving away as a grad student you can have as many of these pictures as you like.
Actually, German researchers have reported that DNA vaccines may be deliverable via a tattoo gun. Whether they use a plasmid or a virus of whatever sort (not that deadly really) to deliver the DNA is still another question, but doing it effectively on a rather large scale would become feasible with this technique.
A Christian label with one of my favourite bands, Relient K, has a promotional site with a few free tracks - and good ones.
http://freegotee.com/
The original journal articles for those interested in more than a press release:
Efficient Oxygen Reduction Fuel Cell Electrocatalysis on Voltammetrically Dealloyed Pt-Cu-Co Nanoparticles (Strasser et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200703331
Electrocatalysis on Bimetallic Surfaces: Modifying Catalytic Reactivity for Oxygen Reduction by Voltammetric Surface Dealloying (Koh & Strasser)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0742784
To fully answer that question would take a whole course on organometallic chemistry to explain, but it has to do with the d-electron configuration of the platinum, (d8), which results in organometallic compounds which can be either square planar or octahedral. The ability to switch between these structures (and related oxidation states) allows for transitions and bonding between the states which allows for the creation of intermediates necessary for catalytic reactions. Bulk platinum (i.e. as a heterogeneous catalyst) also has d-electrons available at the metal surface which can form bonding and anti-bonding ( = bond breaking) bonds with small molecules. Essentially when it is reacting with, say, hydrogen gas, the H2 adsorbs onto the surface and, each atom forming a bond with one Pt atom's d-orbital.
A good book might be Heterogeneous Catalysts for the Synthetic Chemist (Google Book Search)
While I do somewhat agree with the sentiment of the above poster that 'there are more important things that we could be working on', I think that it would be fair to remember that not ever scientist is suited to work on every project - to work on "cancer" (as it is so broadly put) you need certain kinds of scientists - i.e. biochemists, molecular & cellular biologists, organic & medicinal chemists, and pharmacists in order to do direct research on cancer. This fellow (G. Ramanath) is a materials engineer, and thus would be ill equipped to doing cancer-curing research.
However, it should be noted that the ability to DO cancer research is only made possible by discoveries in other areas of science - physics (radiation therapy, imaging methods), engineering (devising machines to test for and to visualize cancerous growths), chemistry (new ways to make and deliver drugs), materials science (better materials to do all of the above!) , computing science (imaging, modelling), and biochemistry & biology (understanding cellular processes) by those who are not aiming to cure diseases, but whom seek to advance the limits of human knowledge and understanding. Creating a better glue just happens to be one such advance that may help indirectly.
Also, I would doubt that the authorities in NZ relied solely on the students' data. They would have simply used the student's data as the starting point that would inform them that there is a problem. Several other methods are available to determine the content of Vitamin C in juices, in particular HPLC based methods or others which tend to be much more accurate.
It would be nice if we could just keep polychlorinated biphenyls out of the environment in the first place.
Despite my unending devotion to Mr. Colbert, I must point out that he did not invent the word truthiness. He, like Microsoft did with their use of the word Genuine, gave it a new meaning.
Well, being a chemist, making a few new molecules in my undergrad thesis was a very cool thing to do, of course now I have to do it all the time, but every once in a while you make something really cool.
Shaving sans cream is way better. I usually just shave in the shower. I take a small plastic mirror coated with some soap (keeps it from fogging up) and go for it with a Mach 3. Works great. Shaving cream just irritates my skin too much.
Kids have a genuine need for real toys and mud and water and sand to play with. If all they ever interact with is a computer, not only will they be more likely to become overweight, they won't have a single learned concept in physics.
I believe that the article that davecor66 is referring to is "Failing to teach them how to handle real life". If you haven't read it, then read it now!
If I ever have kids, I'm kicking them outside the minute that they discover out the existence of computer games.
Not intending to be funny here, but this really sounds like Xerox had one of those didn't-work-but-we'll-sell-it-anyway accidents. Maybe they were just trying to make some nice cyan or magenta ink and suddenly, 'oh my... it faded! It wasn't supposed to do that. I wonder... maybe we could sell it?'
On the other hand, there have been people working on photochromism for UV-activated switches recently for light based memory systems (quite a buzz among some materials chemists). Maybe they picked up on the idea from that... perhaps they did it on purpose from the start.
In science our primary means of communication are words. Because of that, we need to have some degree of stability in the definitions of the words that we are using. At the same time, we (scientists) are constantly encountering new phenomena which can challenge our current definitions and systems of classification. Much of the same problem can be seen in biology: when taxonomists were originally dividing living organisms into families, species, and genuses, they had no genetic information available - they based their classifications on the structures present. However now many species have had their relations reassigned based on genetics - this means new names which better line up with the facts that are now known. Still, not everything must be changed; it is not always necessary.
Much the same has happened with physics, chemistry, and astronomy. In chemistry, the term "dative bond" has been all but replaced by alternative words. Some (older chemists) still use it, however it is a word that many disfavour. (And personally I prefer its use to some of the more clumsy longer names given.) In astronomy, "planet" was originally the name given to "wandering stars," yet we still use the term planet to describe them. Admittedly a case could be made for changing our definition, but I think that subclasses are possily a better way to go. Most of us have accepted the term "Gas Giant" for some time, and it in no way lessens the planetary status of such giants. Perhaps the idea of Dwarf Planets will gain similar acceptance?
Frankly though, I am not entirely sure that size is always the best way to categorize anything (despite our human inclination to do so)... perhaps composition or habitability might be better? (although this will be of limited use if we're never bother to visit them) I could easily be persuaded to describe pluto as an "icy planet"... or Earth as an "M-class planet."
If you were using something like indigo, you would be using a perfectly legal, public domain ink - one of the ones in the "5,000 years old" category. However nowadays much research and development goes into creating new inks. I worked at one such company's research centre, let's call it Company X, for one of my co-ops. Creating a new ink was serious business. So hopefully this can be an overview of what I learned.
In order to create a "clone" ink, you have to match the colours, as most printers are designed to use a certain colour space, which must be matched by the inks used - a mismatch of colours means that your photos won't look quite right. Certain chemical structures absorb light at different wavelengths, and have different absorption patterns. You need to match it very closely, otherwise a Brand Name print and a Knock-Off will look different depending on the light that it is viewed under (Fluorescent vs Sunlight & Incandescent lights). The easiest way to do this is to match the structure of the dye very closely, or at least by finding a related dye that has the same absorption spectrum. Furthermore, the ink has to stick to the surface well enough, be fade-resistant (i.e. not break down with exposure to sunlight), and ideally easy to make. The chemist's job is to design and make said new dyes so that the new dye molecule - and just as importantly the process used to make it - can be patented.
Formulations are another part of the patent. I don't know if you've ever smelled the difference between a Canon brand ink cartridge and a clone (I get mine from piloshop.ca), but they smell very different. Piloshop's ink reeks of what I am fairly sure is ethylene glycol (the price of cheapness). Not only does one have to match the colour with the right chemical dye (or combination of them), one must also make sure that they are properly dissolved, dispersed, have the right consistency, and so forth. Bad formulations lead to ink that chips off, or steaking on the page. This is much like the pharmaceutical industry where it is not just the drug that you use, but what other things you throw in to make it work and be absorbed by the body. (E.g. a certain widely-used drug is sold as the citrate salt to make it work better.)
As for violating the DCMA, you've forgotten what the D stands for: digital. This is chemical. And every company out there is testing their competitor's chemical products. Whether it's a battery company, a drug company, or a plastics company. Every product needs a benchmark, and chances are it was made by the other guys. It can actually be quite simple to find out what some of the chemical components are, however the beauty of what HP's chemists have done is that they've managed to create a simple fingerprint-type comparisson test that uses a relatively small amount of dye. And at a dozen dyes a week, it sounds like it works well.
Alright here it is: we build a big "laser" and blast the planet/pluton/dwarf to smithereens. No Pluto = no controversy. All can, and will, be happy then. We can even get it a memorial plaque. It could say something like this:
In memory of Pluto, 1930-2006
Beloved 9th planet of our solar system, dwarf planet, and now intercosmic dust, we will remember you...
Is this "Robot Professor" in any way related to "Video Professor"?
It's simply the economics of the issue. Child labour is far cheaper than pigeon labour in China.
I wouldn't be suprised if this explosion was caused on purpose by some competitor of Dell's. Just read the way that the article is written:
This is really great. Because it runs on methanol, it's going to be fairly affordable (at least for short trips to places without any electrical power and potentially very easy to refill - Methanol is also sold as "Wood Alcohol" at your local hardware store. The only real question is the concentration. Most DMFCs (Direct Methanol Fuel Cells) need the methanol to be watered down. The best that I've seen are 99.5% (it had to use a means of recycling the water produced, as the methanol feed can't be more than 70% for electrochemical reasons otherwise) and 20-30%, however in research one generally is trying for 10% at best (I've done 3 work terms of research in fuel cell technologies - as a chemist). Usually at such high concentrations the methanol starts to seep across the polymer membrane, and cutting the voltage. It's one of the big problems with DMFCs, as having to dilute the methanol means that the reservoir gets bigger and more inconvenient. So they might not be too keen to let people mix their own...
Toshiba's fuel cell news is a little old, still, it's great that they're finally getting it out and available for the public. I'm surprised though that they're using one with so many moving parts - I would think that a microfluidics approach would work too. But personally I'd love to take one apart to see how they have their membrane electrode assembly with its proton exchange membrane
The question is going to be whether, like some inkjet printers, others will be able to make cheaper versions of the refilling cartriges. After all, they're just holding methanol and water - not very dangerous, or explosive, and the flammability is fairly low - but drink it and you might go blind. Their expressed concern in the article is smoking and fuming when overheating, but unless it's 100% methanol, or the cell had a very high power output (with lots of heat being generated), I couldn't see it being a problem. Even in the lab I've never seen methanol smoke - it just boils or evaporates very quickly.
One question to those who know more about computers than me: how much power does an average laptop use? I'm curious to work out what kind of efficiency they're getting with their cells.
... some people will never learn the difference between effect and affect:
"The issue effects not only employees but also employers."
And this, from a senior editor no less! Tsk tsk...
Science has shown us over the years that the minority of our population that has left handed DNA are just as good as the rest of us. Despite this the scientific establishment has continued to discriminate against them.
:P
We have to stop discriminating based on the twists of our DNA.