(Weather) Biodiesel and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
No commentsBy Joseph
It is normal for people to weigh possible fuel alternatives. In fact, that is about the only way to find out which one is the best. Definitely, you would like to find out the best alternative which can help you save money the most and the best option for your automobile and the earth.
You have to look at many contributing factors. Do not make a choice base on popularity because being popular may not be the best. Get the facts and learn what you can so your decision is an informed one.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
CNG, Compressed Natural Gas, is an alternative fuel. It is mostly available only in in California, although it can be found randomly throughout the United States. Only CNG vehicles can use CNG as a fuel source. Home based production is possible through a special unit available mostly from manufacturers of CNG vehicles.
CNG also has been criticized for producing high levels of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.Also it provides less power than regular fuel. CNG, however, is more affordable compared to any other fuel alternative.
Looking at Biodiesel
Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil, lye and ethanol. It is a safe fuel that does not have the high risk of explosion or fire. It runs smooth and offers the same level of power as regular diesel fuel Biodiesel can also be used in any vehicle that currently uses diesel fuel.
Biodiesel can be sourced out from gas stations around the country. %LINK2% is also possible. Biodiesel burns clean and produces no emissions.
The Bottom Line
Between CNG and Biodiesel, the latter appears to be more user friendly. Moreover supply is more accessible. You are not required to invest on equipment to make it either. Biodiesel production is doable since inputs are readily available from commonly used everyday items .
Biodiesel is also much safer. It is environment friendly since it contains no pollutive components. It also will not reduce the power your vehicle has so you will not notice the switch to an alternative fuel.
CNG may prove to be more applicable to consumers residing in California and those with funds for running a CNG vehicle For the majority of people who do not live in California and can not afford to buy a CNG vehicle or the CNG equipment to refuel, biodiesel is a much better choice.
Consider biodiesel as the best alternative fuel. You can first have Biodiesel for your car as a start. Learn more about homemade biodiesel by going to our website at http://www.biodieselathome.biz
Neuromorphic Chips to Replace Brain Cells
By Robert Webb
Is society moving towards a future where people will be able to replace their biological neurons with computer chips or artificial neurons? Some researchers think that having implantable neural prostheses may be just around the corner. This currently science fiction scenario may actually not be that far off. There has been a continuing development of neural prostheses that are implantable in the brain. This type of implant will signal in a totally new era in bioengineering and also neuroscience research. Researchers have increasinglly made better intracranial implants of devices that are able to communicate with the brain. They can be used for a variety of brain disorders in order to restore either motor, sensory or cognitive functions.
In the future, neuromorphic chips may eventually serve as a replacement for biological neurons. There are quite a few researchers who are working on this. Neuromorphic basically refers to a computer chip that mimics biological neurons such as the firing patterns and connectivity. Neuromorphic chips may be able to function as brain implants for a variety of different people who have brain disorders such as brain damage or stroke. A neuromorphic chip could in theory replace the brain matter that is missing as a result of brain damage.
What about those people who only want to replace their brain matter with something that is more durable? In the future, scientists may eventually create neuron sized robots or maybe even smaller nanorobots that will enable the replacement of biological neurons. The futurist Ray Kurzweil has discussed this possiblity for some time. These nano sized robots may eventually be able to precisely position themselves inside a person’s brain. The nano sized robot could replace all of the relevant synaptic connections and then function as a total replacement for the biological neuron. This could be replicated for every single neuron in the brain until the whole brain had been replaced by non-biological neurons or a neuromorphic type chip.
Having a neuromorphic brain brings up quite a few interesting questions. One is how much of a neuron do we actually need to simulate in a chip to get a good representation? There may be a lot of the information inside a real neuron that may actually be quite superfluous. However scientists really don’t know enough why an aggregate amount of atoms inside a person’s brain can sustain a unitary conscious experience. It is really not that clear how much information inside the neuron is really needed to functionally replicate all of its processes.
Will a neuromorphic chip be able to replicate our current experience of consciousness? Consciousness is actually a really complex emergent function of several aspects of brain processes at multiple levels. It is currently at all not clear if consciousness can really be replicated merely by having a model of all of the computational capacity in the brain via a bunch of artificial neurons and also synaptic connections.
What would be the actual benefits of having a brain replaced by artificial neurons? Well, for one thing this would be a much more durable substrate that would likely be much less susceptible to damage. Currently our biological neurons are fairly fragile. They often die off over the course of our lifetimes. So having these artificial neurons might be beneficial for extreme life extension as your brain would be able to last quite a bit longer. Overall, though, there might be some enormous benefits to replacing your biological neurons with a functional artificial chip equivalent.
See my blog treatments for depression and
depression treatments and finally
treatment depression for more information about neuroscience and neurotechnology.
Find Out The Latest Details On Weather Forecasts Around The World
Will Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Get FDA Approval?
By Robert Webb
Neuronetics had tried last year (Jan 2007) to get FDA approval for its transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device, but failed spectacularly. Transcanial magnetic stimulation is a way of non-invasively stimulating the brain with electromagnetism. So what the heck happened with the trial? Neuronetics showed the results of a clinical trial of TMS for major depression to a board of FDA advisors.
The primary efficacy outcome in the clinical trial was the reduction in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) symptom score after 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 17- and 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) (pdf). In the trial, the mean decrease in the MADRS scores was about 5.6 points in the active TMS and around 3.2 points in the sham TMS. Unfortunately for neuronetics, the p-value at the six week mark was .058. A p-value less than .05 is usually that difference between sham and active TMS that is considered statistically significant.
Anything higher than a value of .05 means that the trial technically failed to reach statistical significance. Since the MADRS was the primary outcome measure and it had a p value over .05, this was the statistic that caused the FDA to recommend against approval for the TMS device. The FDA could not get over the fact that the mean score on the MADRS was technically not statistically significant over placebo in the mean change in depression scores for patients. Statisticians argued to the FDA that a p-value of .058 is clinically indistinguishable from a p-value of .05, but that wasn’t good enough for the board evaluating the TMS device.
Looking at the other statistics this specifc trial, the active TMS did reach statistical significance over sham when measured by the secondary outcome symptom scales (HAMD-17 and HAMD-24). So why is it that the TMS device did reach statistical significance on some measures but not others? Well, the MADRS, HAMD-17 and HAMD-24 (pdf) are 3 different scales with completely different rating items.
The TMS is activating a specific area of the brain (the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDPFC)). Left dorsolateral prefrontal dysfunction (LDPFC) is associated with pseudodepressive symptoms. These type of symptoms include apathy, indifference, anergia, poor concentration and psychomotor retardation. So what likely happened on the neuronetics trial is that specific ratings scales may load more or less heavily on LDPFC dysfunction. The MADRS may not have reached statistical significance because not enough items measured the pseudodepressed type of symptoms associated with LDPFC dysfunction.
This past november (2007), neuronetics had gotten results from a new trial. Surprisingly neuronetics again used the reduction in mean MADRS scores as the primary outcome measure but after 4 weeks instead of 6 weeks. For this new trial, active TMS does show statistically significant improvement over sham TMS with a p-value of .038. Unfortunately there is only a trend for more improvement evident at six weeks with a p-value of .052. The difference between active and sham just missed statistical significance at the six week mark. Both HAMD-17 and HAMD-24 had a reduction in mean scores that was statistically significant for the active treatment over sham (P=0.006 and P=0.012) at four weeks and at six weeks (P=0.005 and P=0.015).
So in this second trial, they at least got clinical efficacy on their primary measure. However that fact that the MADRS mean score didn’t distinguish itself from sham after six weeks is not so good. Will the FDA see past this fact and approve the device? It seems that it will be a close call, but I don’t have confidence that it will be approved. Neuronetics really messed up on both of these trials. If they had looked at the specific rating scale items, they probably could have predicted which rating scale to use as a primary outcome measure.
My guess is that there was a greater reduction in symptoms as measured by the HAMD rating scale because the items load more on LDPFC dysfunction than the MADRS scale. Not to mention that neuronetics used treatment resistant depressed patients in the trial. They are much less likely to respond to treatment than normal patients and make the end results of the trial look, well, depressing.
See my blog colorado brain injury lawyer and
brain injury lawyer colorado and finally
colorado brain injury attorney for more information.
Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 at 5:05 am and is filed under science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
