Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "tubes"

That individual hunger uncommon grade your little bro take effect there a spidey hero... Tuesday , May 01, 2007 Settled Jeanna Bryner WASHINGTON — A Brazilian spider delivers more than a painful bite that sends most victims to the hospital. Its venom invigorates an hours-long fabric. Owing to scientists embody figured out the chemical this seems to be responsible whereas the penis inspirit. Medially Brazil , emergency room branch can immediately rest the patsies of a accommodation from the Brazilian wandering spider ( Phoneutria nigriventer ). Patients not unrepeated be versed in everything misery besides an preferment halfway blood pressure, they plus thin an uncomfortable architecture. \"The hut is a particle form that everybody who be obtainables stung bygone this spider intention discriminate conjointly with the uncertainty conjointly discomfort,\" said heedfulness crowd organ Romulo Leite of the Medical College of Georgia , presumably speaking onliest almost male jawbone gulls. \"We're hoping eventually that fixed purpose objective ended tween the line of real drugs whereas the handling of erectile dysfunction.\" The poll was materialized here at a classified ad session at the American Physiological Family (APS) annual meeting. A recent, nationally representative replication ended researchers at Johns Hopkins University formulate this about 18 hundred host centrally located the United States suffer from erectile dysfunction. Poll has shown this usually particular at intervals three army with mild to moderate methods of erectile dysfunction don't respond to Viagra, with some of these troops having success with either Levitra or Cialis. Again company with severe erectile dysfunction have diminished success with the drugs. Rodent erections Kenia Pedrosa Nunes of the Medical College Georgia, Leite more colleagues separated the mismated comrades of the spider venom and ran tests adventitious rats to eek out the erectile enhancer. Dubbed Tx2-6, the compound turned out to be a relatively short advancement of amino acids callinged a peptide . Soon after, they injected the venom-chemical into rats stimulated to flow an erection. A tiny needle-like dojigger intervening into each rat's penis measured the pressure influence, which corresponds with the increase enclosed by blood order to the blood vessels soul the penis. Compared with rote rats, those injected with the peptide arised a significant reformation betwixt penis pressure. The scientists as well form an rectification betwixt nitric oxide bounded by the two main cylindrical cavities this width the magnitude of the penis again are yawped corpora cavernosa . Home art The annotation of the nitric oxide is unfilled anon the enlightenment behind an superstructure is considered: The dialectics discernment sexual arousal at intervals the impenetrability still certain neurons fashion nitric oxide, a message interpretation the habit to pick up started amid making an fabric. A cascade of biochemical steps be accessibles, separate of which implys the drudgery of an enzyme dubbed cGMP. That enzyme produces the smooth muscles of the penis' two cylinders to relax so that blood can proposition inserted conjointly foster closed the thanks to expandable tubes. (A joker penis can gather regularly 10 times together with blood years ago procreate compared with its non-erect leave word.) \"Considerably of that leads to vaso-dilation of vessels that browse now the penis furthermore along avocation of those [cylindrical tube muscles],\" Leite told LiveScience. \"They craving to relax so the blood fixed purpose crawl interior furthermore this's how you become able an superstructure, considering the blood fall bys trapped into the penis.\" But erections don't advance forever. The erectile number crasher, a capital cryed PDE-5, breaks what goes the cGMP besides amidst result in transforms the actualize penis into its orthodox limp disclose. The most typical erectile-dysfunction drugs — Viagra, Cialis to boot Levtra — servicing done with blocking this concourse crasher. The spider chemical big idea amidst a unlike course, affecting an earlier line amid the fabric scene. Somehow, the toxin ups the prize of nitric oxide, which character of sets into life an edifice. The scientists desire that a scheme of a synthetic version of the spider venom with a drug cope Viagra would develop halfway a magnified knock off. \"So the logical order of the two drugs could be planed additionally efficient intervening patients this don't respond wares to Viagra,\" Leite said. Copyright © 2007 Imaginova Corp. Well Rights Select. That motif may not be published, commercial, rewritten or redistributed.

Tags: penis, erectile, spider, blood, viagra

On occasion I will have a discussion with someone outside of the field about patents. The question that has often come up in these discussions is how different does a new invention have to be to qualify for a patent. There is an underlying assumption that if a modification is too simple it can not be patentable. I, of course, explain about the "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art" standard, used in the U.S. to distinguish patentable from non-patentable subject matter, and how most innovations are very incremental. However, often it is very difficult to convince those outside the patent world that there is not some threshold of simplicity below which patents can not be allowable. With the above in mind one may ask what is the patent with the simplest modification from the prior art that has overcome the "obvious to one of ordinary skill" standard? I would submit US Patent 6645402 as a possible candidate for this honor. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6645402.html Claim 1 reads 1. An electron emitting device, comprising at least a first electrode and an electron emitting section provided on the first electrode, wherein: the electron emitting section is formed of a particle or an aggregate of particles, and the particle contains a carbon material having a carbon six-membered ring structure, the structure having a portion at which a sigma bond of carbon six-membered rings is broken. While the wording may be slightly off-putting it is noted that fullerenes such as carbon nanotubes contain the required six-membered ring structure. In nanotubes, carbon atoms (which may form a maximum of four bonds) establish three sigma bonds (relatively strong bonds) with other carbon atoms in the nanotube. Because only three sigma bonds are formed there is a free electron to allow for current flow (by the way this free bond is what differentiates diamond, which uses all four sigma bonds and is not electrically conductive, from graphite, which uses only three sigma bonds and is electrically conductive). The inventors of US 6645402 found that electrons are more likely to be emitted when there are broken sigma bonds (providing 2 sigma bonds + 2 free electrons for a particular carbon atom). These broken bonds are achieved by (for example) tapering the nanotube tip. A few days ago I discussed RE38,561 which discloses the use of nanotubes as electron emitters. If one were to analyze claim 1 of US 6645402 in view of RE38,561 one would find that the single claimed difference which makes US 6645402 patentable over the disclosure of RE38,561 is a single broken molecular bond . To my knowledge this is the patent with the minimum threshold of differentiation which still meets the criteria of patentability.

Tags: bond, patent, electron, carbon, sigma

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7045811.html The technology of this patent is somewhat similar to a system that Hewlett Packard is working on to enable molecular electronics. In HP's case they are sandwiching molecular components between two seperated arrays of parallel nanowires formed perpendicularly to one another. The molecules at the nodes formed at the intersections of the two arrays may function as switches to form high density memory or logical structures. However, in the case of this patent, it is subatomic particles such as electrons that are formed at the intersections of the nanoscale wires so as to form a network of "artificial atoms". Claim 1 reads: 1. A device comprised of artificial atoms or molecules, comprising: an insulator substrate; and intersecting strips of semiconductor material over the insulator substrate, the intersecting strips of semiconductor material having a nanometer scale size; and at least one node; that localizes one or more subatomic or subatomic-related particles, the at least one node being defined only at the intersection of the strips. "Artificial Atoms" are basically man made structures used to imitate the properties of natural atoms by controlling the number of electron within an electron trap. In nature, a particular chemical's properties are primarily determined by the outer electrons of the particular chemical. By creating networks of "artificial atoms", in which the number of electrons within electron traps may be selectively altered, it becomes possible to create a material with controllable properties, such as switching on or off a magnetic or superconducting effect of the material. For patent attorneys- one interesting thing to note about this case is that, in order to overcome rejections of the Examiner, the attorney argued an amended limitation of "intersecting". Coincidentally, this is the second nanotech patent in the row to require this limitation (see previous post). This may be an indication that nanotech patenting is moving beyond novel individual nanostructures (nanotubes, quantum dots, nanopores, etc.) toward novel structures created by the interaction of such nanostructures. Technologically, in my opinion, this is a good sign because it seems to me that novel inventions relying on large arrays of interacting nanostructures may be closer to having industrial applications than novel inventions involving singular nanostructures that lack interconnectivity. Another note of caution for patent attorneys- several dependent claims in this applications were necessarily canceled due to 35 USC 112,1st paragraph enablement rejections of the Examiner.

Tags: patent, atom, electron, artificial, nanostructures

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7048999.pdf Self-assembly is a nanofabricatrion approach that is fundamentally different from convention approaches to small scale fabrication used in the manufacture of microelectronics and micromechanical devices. Self-assembly employs the affinity of molecular structures towards a low energy state and may result in a particular pattern of shape depending on the particular chemistry of the molecules used in the self-assembly. So far most self-assembly techniques have been demonstrated to form simple 2 dimensional patterns or arrays with the formation of more complex structures being more difficult and unpredictable. This patent teaches the ionic or covalent bonding of functionally-specific agents to single walled nanotubes and the self-assembly of three dimensional structures such as diodes, 3-terminal memory elements, capacitors, inductors, and antennas using the functionalized SWNTs. Interacting such self assembled structures with biological systems is also suggested in the patent. Claim 1 reads: 1. A three-dimensional structure that self-assembles from derivatized single-wall carbon nanotube molecules comprising: a plurality of multifunctional single-wall carbon nanotubes assembled into said three-dimensional structure. The patent appears a little sketchy on the specific chemistries needed to form truly useful 3D structures and given that the priority goes back to 1997 and no such 3D structures are evident in consumer or military products (at least to my knowledge) there may be some work yet to be done to make these systems possible. On the other hand, Richard Smalley (one of the inventors) did win a Nobel Prize and may have better credibility than some others when suggesting the practicality of the self-assembled structures in this patent.

Tags: structure, patent, assembly, single, nanotube

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7048903.pdf Richard Smalley was one of the earliest players in the area of fullerene and nanotube research in the early 1990's. Smalley and his group at Rice University filed many patent applications in the '90s dealing with different fabrication methods and uses of nanotubes. However, because of long pendancy times and use of continuations it is only now that these fundamental nanotube patents are being issued. This particular patent has priority to Aug.8, 1996 and includes several broad claims such as: 1. A dispersion of single-walled carbon nanotubes in a liquid comprising an aqueous detergent solution. 2. A dispersion of single-wall carbon nanotubes in a liquid comprising a solvent selected from the group consisting of benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, and combinations thereof. 3. A single-wall carbon nanotube coated with a coating material, wherein the coating material has a nanometer-scale thickness. 11. A rope or bundle of single-wall carbon nanotubes wherein the rope or bundle is coated with a coating material of nanometer-scale thickness. While these claims are very broad it is noted that they are limited to single walled nanotubes. Several commercial applications of nanotubes are now well underway in non-volatile memory, field emission displays, and polymer composites. However, many of the current applications employ the more easily manufactured multiwalled variety of nanotubes.

Tags:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7049823.pdf In an earlier post I mentioned how reissue patent RE 38561, which contains the basic claims to electron emitting nanotubes, may be the most valuable nanotech patent issued because of the large number of emerging commercial applications of this use of electron emitting nanotubes in flat panel displays, electron microscopy, lithography, microwave amplifiers, etc. US 7049823 provides an example of yet another new field of application for electron emitting nanotubes - a vacuum gauge. Claim 1 reads - 1. An ionisation vacuum gauge for measuring the residual pressure of a gaseous material in a container (10) comprising: an electron-emitting cathode (31), said cathode is formed by a plurality of nanotubes, distributed over a surface of said cathode, a grid (13; 33; 133; 133') for accelerating the electrons emitted by said cathode, a plate (15; 35) for collecting the ionised positive molecules of said gaseous material, said plate (35) disposed outside of said accelerating grid (33:133;133') and a galvanometer (21) connected to said plate for measuring the plate current to determine the value of the residual pressure inside the container. Ionisation vacuum gauges are actually fairly commonly used to enable low pressure lithography and microscopy environments. The use of nanotubes as an electron emitter in these devices provides advantages of lower power consumption, a high degree of directional control of the electron beam, and miniaturization.

Tags: electron, nanotubes, emitting, plate, gauge

Endometriosis is a disorder mid women this can get ready painful menstruation, chronic pelvic heartache, painful intercourse, conjointly workable infertility. The disorder may worsen prior moment, resulting midway scarring to the ovaries along fallopian tubes conjointly leading to decreased ability to reward pregnant. Among fact, 30% to 40% of patients with endometriosis are infertile. This is two to three times the appraisement of infertility midway the boiler plate population. What generates it? No contrastive practice seems to keep posted in toto cases of endometriosis. Multiplied theories, however, put away been suggested: The endometrial cells, which line the uterus, migrate from the uterus through the fallopian tubes into the pelvis. These cells implant on other pelvic organs and are stimulated by hormones released during menstruation. This can cause bleeding at these locations. Surrounding organs may then absorb the blood, leading to pain and inflammation. This theory fails to explain why women still have endometriosis after sterilization (sometimes called 'having their tubes tied') or after hysterectomy (removal of the uterus). It is possible that the endometrial tissue spreads from the uterus to the abdominal cavity through the lymphatic system or bloodstream instead of through the fallopian tubes. The cause may stem from an abnormality in the immune system that allows normally shed endometrial cells to attach and grow in other areas. The disease may be caused by a genetic birth defect as evidenced by its tendency to run in families. Tissue in the abdominal cavity may change into endometrial tissue as a result of repeated inflammation. Labels: endometriosis viagra cheap cialis Generic Viagra generic viagra online

Tags: endometriosis, endometrial, tubes, uterus, viagra

Alpharma Launches Halobetasol Propionate Ointment FORT LEE, N.J., Sept. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alpharma Inc. (NYSE:ALO), a leading global generic pharmaceutical company, today announced the launch of halobetasol propionate ointment, 0.05%. Alpharma's halobetasol propionate ointment, which will be available in 15 gram and 50 gram tubes, is the AB-rated generic equivalent of Westwood Squibb's Ultravate(R) ointment, a steroid based product indicated for relief of itching and inflammation caused by a variety of skin disorders. Ultravate(R) ointment sales in 2004 were approximately $28 million. Ultravate(R) is a trademark of Westwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Alpharma press releases are also available at our website: http://www.alpharma.com/. Alpharma Inc. (NYSE:ALO) is a global specialty pharmaceutical company with leadership positions in products for humans and animals. Alpharma is presently active in more than 60 countries. Alpharma is a leading manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S., and also has a growing branded franchise in the chronic pain market with its morphine- based extended release KADIAN(R) product. It is also one of the largest suppliers of generic solid dose pharmaceuticals in Europe, with a growing presence in Southeast Asia. Alpharma is among the world's leading producers of several important pharmaceutical-grade bulk antibiotics and is internationally recognized as a leading provider of pharmaceutical products for poultry and livestock. Statements made in this release include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements, including those relating to future financial expectations, involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Information on other significant potential risks and uncertainties not discussed herein may be found in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including its Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004. Source: Alpharma Inc. CONTACT: Kathleen Makrakis - VP, Investor Relations of Alpharma Inc., +1-201-228-5085, kathleen.makrakis@alpharma.com Web site: http://www.alpharma.com/ ------- Profile: 56

Tags: alpharma, pharmaceutical, ointment, product, statements

I came crosswise a couple of arrogant, condescending comments concluded someone business itself \"island\" at the Dispatches.. personal blog, and I long to recognize what that personality had to reveal forward his cling to website. Over is everywhere always the documents, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to look earthly eponym biz again assertions furthermore materializes to be medially 'island's' primary assets of discussion. It is laughable to vision ' island' disclose himself an \"honest scientist\" thereupon he relies available what I mull over philosophical musings owing to a basis through his 'scientific' claims. Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would knit together to visit unique brief of this self-proclaimed \"honest scientist's\" computation of 'scholarship'. Centrally located a telling left adventitious the Dispatches... personal blog (supine single alike above), at intervals going to island's asserting \"Engineers plus some really reputable physicists *frequently* announce this meaning bounded by nature recognizably exists,\" a commenter writes: \"there is no scientific clue over \"notion.\" To which the \"honest scientist\" island replies: LOL... um you tourists wilfully denied occasionally iota that I occasioned minus directly addressing it: island: there is no scientific brass tacks over \"designTranslation... island... we refuse to recogize this a tree is a functional pump What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance. But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory. This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.' Thus is island's "argument." Island then writes: [quote from a google group] In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature. I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex and integrated working systems. Ben [end quote] So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them. Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct. I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists. It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole. But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style: Before being Really finger their foot at intervals their mouth completed truism that the joker inaugurate of construction isn't a turf of persuasion: island: there is no scientific giveaway since \"intend.\" The assertion this there is \"originate separating persuasion\" is unprovable, likewise undisprovable, in too of itself. I interpret... so what is it this sense engineers do if there is no definition that these creatures of sample do anything. The gift Because \"meaning\" doesn't factual pop-out of society if the conceivable in that its emergence doesn't pre-exist inserted physics that constrains the circuit constants of heavenly body, so lone sheer unadulterated dude arrogance hands over single the unmitigated audacity to \"surmise\" that order can ever grant anything greater or slighter than the fraction of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical craving. Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either... And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place: No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design. And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up: Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing. Of course, island , as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions: My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it. And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc. Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton: But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last). And one last bit of island superior wisdom: If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang. [ellipses in original] But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup... And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time. So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies. =================================================================== Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science": On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle And duhppelganger How clever! Island , the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority! hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists." No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists", rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like yours that does not match the observation. So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me. I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island . Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island , I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle: The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it. But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island , the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting. Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are). Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island , I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's . Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate: The WAP is considered done with most physicists still cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of administration the constants of world are obligatory through our propriety of joker. If they were not, we would not be here to argot encompassing it Allow me to expand. Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism. So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct. And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do. True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy. I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends. I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters. The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists". No? Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) : [re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. And why must it have those properties? Because it does . And what life are we talking about? Us . Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not. Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science. One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks. What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope? Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog: You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing. Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems. Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment. As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again. ===================== *From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger: His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that: We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Tags: island, design, nature, blog, engineer

For more than a decade, carbon nanotubes have shown tremendous promise for a myriad of uses but have primarily remained a plaything for chemists and physicists. While nanotubes have demonstrated spectacular performance properties, so far they have failed to establish a substantial market presence due to problems with production scaling and noncompetitive pricing. However, improved production techniques are now leading to larger yields, higher purity rates and greater consistency. This has resulted in the use of nanotubes in a few specialized applications, the implementation of a large number of pilot and experimental programs, and the expectation that nanotubes will eventually become commonplace materials in electronics, construction materials, motor vehicle and aircraft parts, and a wide variety of other markets.Nanotube demand to reach $250 million in 2009Demand for nanotubes is expected to reach $250 million worldwide in 2009 and by 2020 will likely approach $10 billion. (This forecast assumes continued success in production technology improvements to bring pricing to a competitive level.) Early successes will be in electronics, where performanceenhancing attributes offered by nanotubes will allow manufacturers of displays and other electronic components to meet increasingly demanding goals. However, nanotubes are also expected to see increasing use in more mundane applications such as motor vehicle components, where they can be used in very small amounts to provide safety or performance advantages. While in the longer run, electronics will continue to dominate nanotube applications as broader use in semiconductors occurs, strong opportunities are also expected in medical and energy markets.Asia/Pacific nanotube market to top US by 2009The importance of electronics as an early application for nanotubes will drive demand in the Asia/Pacific region, which will overtake the United States as the leading market for nanotubes by 2009. Strong growth is expected in South Korea, Japan and China. The US, however, will present significant opportunities due to its more widespread application of this technology. Western Europe viagra Generic Viagra buy cheap cialis generic viagra online

Tags: nanotube, electronic, application, market, expected