Breaking the Botnet Code

Software that deciphers botnet communications could help infiltrate criminals’ networks.

By Robert Lemos

Networks of compromised computers controlled by a central server, better known as botnets, are a Swiss Army knife of tools for online criminals. Hackers can use these co-opted systems to churn out spam, host malicious code, hide their tracks on the Internet, or flood a corporate network to cut off its access to the Web.

Whenever a new botnet appears, researchers race to reverse engineer the software it installs on a victim’s machine, and to decode the way each bot communicates with the controlling server. Because these communications are often encrypted, such analyses can take weeks or months. Now researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon University have created a way to automatically reverse engineer the communications between compromised computers and their controlling servers.

In a paper to be presented this week at the Association for Computing Machinery’s Conference on Computer and Communications Security, the researchers show how automatic reverse engineering can decipher the structure and purpose of the communications between a command-and-control server and its bots.

“The communications protocol of the botnet is the core of the botnet,” says Juan Caballero, a PhD student affiliated with both the University of California at Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon University, and lead author of the paper. “That is how the attacker sends commands to the botnet.”

When researchers have previously tried to automatically analyze botnet communicationprotocols, they focused on deciphering the commands received by the client. Yet Caballero, together with UC Berkeley assistant professor Dawn Song and two other colleagues, has developed a technique that translates both the commands received by a client and the responses it sends.

The researchers then ran the botnet code on a virtual machine and analyzed the movement of information to and from a computer’s registers–memory components within a machine’s processor–before it was encrypted. Watching for changes in the memory registers–the researchers call this “buffer deconstruction”– allowed them to derive the structure of the botnet communications and infer the function of the various components of each command.

“This is relevant for malware, because we typically do not have the executable for the command-and-control server of a botnet,” said Paolo Milani, a postdoctoral researcher at the Secure System Lab at the Vienna Institute of Technology and author of an earlier paper on automated protocol analysis. “So with previous techniques, we would not be able to automatically reverse engineer the client side of the protocol.”

The researchers built the resulting technique into a tool, called Dispatcher, to analyze botnet network communications and even inject new information into the communications stream. The researchers tested the approach on a complex botnet known as MegaD, which made headlines in early 2008 when security firms noticed it was responsible for nearly a third of spam traffic worldwide.

Article Continues – http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23924/?a=f

‘No fasting’ for cholesterol test

It was thought the body needed time to remove fatty particles from the blood

Patients do not need to fast before having their cholesterol tested, a major report has found.

After analysing data from 300,000 people, Cambridge researchers found results were just as accurate if the patient had eaten before the test.

While a number of studies have pointed to this, the “no need to fast” message has not yet been absorbed, experts say.

It is hoped the review in the Journal of the American Medical Association will inform guidelines everywhere.

Cholesterol tests have long been a key part of assessing a patient’s risk of cardiovascular problems.

Fasting was recommended as it had been thought the body needed enough time to digest food in the system and to clear any fatty particles from the blood. This was in order to produce an accurate reading of so-called “bad” cholesterol – or low-density lipoprotein (LDL).

Financial pressure

But data from 68 long-term surveys in 21 countries suggests this is not the case.

“For decades, people have been asked to fast overnight before their cholesterol tests,” lead researcher Professor John Danesh said.

“These findings indicate that cholesterol measurements are at least as good – and probably somewhat better – when made without fasting.”

The study also adds to the ongoing controversy over whether testing for blood proteins called apolipoproteins is a more reliable way of predicting heart risk than cholesterol testing.

The studies showed that analysing “good” cholesterol – or high-density lipoprotein (HDL) in conjunction with LDL was just as informative as testing for apolipoproteins AI and B.

Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, which funded the study, said: “Given the financial pressure the NHS is under, it’s good news that doctors don’t need to spend money on setting up more sophisticated tests based on apolipoproteins.

“But the study underlines the importance of all GPs being able to measure HDL cholesterol as well as total cholesterol, in order to make the best predictions about heart disease risk.”

Not all doctors currently use tests which differentiate between the two different forms of cholesterol.

Cardiovascular disease – CVD – is the leading form of death in the UK and many other parts of the world.

Dr Dermot Neely of charity Heart UK said the findings on fasting confirmed what many clinicians already knew.

“But it has been very slow to get through, particularly in primary care. There are still labs that will not take non-fasting specimens, so patients get sent home. Hopefully this analysis, which backs up current guidelines, will drive the message home.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8353510.stm

Supremes wrestle with business method, software patents

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Bilski case on Monday. The wide-ranging discussion included significant discussion about the patentability of software and also touched on the patentability of horse-training and speed-dating methods.

By Timothy B. Lee

For the first time in a generation, the nation’s highest court on Monday pondered the question of which inventions are eligible for patent protection. For the petitioner, Bernard Bilski, the issue was whether he’d get a patent on “a method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider.” The exchange gave him little reason for optimism. For the rest of us, the crucial question is what rule will be applied for patent eligibility in the future. On that question, the discussion was anything but clear.

The Bilski case doesn’t involve a software patent, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit didn’t directly address the issue of software patents in its decision last year. But the case does have huge implications for the patentability of software. Already, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the first body to review patent examiners’ decisions) has begun citing Bilski as grounds for rejecting at least the most egregious software patents. If the Supreme Court signs off on the lower court’s work, it’s reasonable to expect this trend to continue. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court adopts a less restrictive standard, the proliferation of software patents may resume in earnest.

Ars has been following the Bilski case since early last year, when it was under consideration by the Federal Circuit. In October 2008, the Federal Circuit rejected Bilski’s patent on the ground that the process it described involved neither a specific machine nor a transformation of matter. The outcome was not a surprise—virtually everyone expected Bilski to lose—but this relatively restrictive standard for patentability was out of character for a court that has a reputation for being strongly pro-patent.

The patent office has been pushing this “machine or transformation” test since at least the 1970s. The Supreme Court flirted with adopting it in its famous trio of software patent cases a generation ago. But ultimately, it stopped short, merely calling it a “clue” to patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit, perhaps cowed by the recent string of unanimous Supreme Court reversals of its decisions, went further: it adopted the test as a substitute for the “useful, concrete and tangible result” that the Supremes had ridiculed two years earlier. On Monday, the high court heard two different perspectives on how it should evaluate the lower court’s ruling.

Of horses and speed dating

Bilski’s attorney, J. Michael Jakes, appeared before the court first. The justices seemed slightly incredulous at his argument that the courts should essentially give up on restricting patents by subject matter, and instead focus on other requirements such as novelty and obviousness.

Justices peppered Jakes with hypotheticals, to see how far this theory extended. Justice Scalia wanted to know if Jakes would have allowed patents on “the best way to train horses” during the 19th century. Justice Sotomayor asked if Jakes would allow a patent on speed dating. Justice Breyer wanted to know if he could get a patent for his “great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law”—”it kept 80 percent of the students awake,” he joked. Justice Ginsburg queried about patents for “an estate plan, tax avoidance, how to resist a corporate takeover, how to choose a jury.”

Jakes told Justice Ginsberg that all of these processes would be “eligible for patenting as processes, assuming they meet the other statutory requirements.” His response to the other justices was substantially the same. He did note that he would leave in place existing restrictions on patenting in fine arts, as well as laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. But he didn’t have any principled objections to patents on horse training, speed dating, or methods of teaching antitrust law.

Software patents on trial

Software patents played a surprisingly large role in the second half of Monday’s arguments, which featured Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart representing the government. The justices were cognizant of the close link between business methods and software patents (most business method patents are also software patents). And they expressed doubt that they could meaningfully restrict business method patents without also affecting the patentability of software.

Stewart argued that applying the “machine or transformation” test would not have changed the outcome of State Street, the 1998 Federal Circuit decision that opened the floodgates to both software and business method patents. This is surprising because State Street was the decision that introduced the Federal Circuit’s now discredited “useful, concrete and tangible result” test. But Stewart contended that the patent in that case, which involved using a software algorithm to manage mutual funds, would be approved under the new “machine or transformation” test the government is now defending.

That provoked a strong response from Justice Stevens, the court’s senior associate justice and its most fervent software patent critic. He noted that the patent in the State Street case merely took a standard computer and installed new software on it. “You can’t say that’s a new machine,” he said. Stewart insisted that installing a sufficiently innovative program on a computer could transform it into a new machine for purposes of patent law.

But Justice Breyer objected that this reasoning would undermine the government’s goal of limiting business method patents. “All you do is you get somebody who knows computers, and you turn every business patent into a setting of switches on the machine because there are no businesses that don’t use those machines.”

Justice Roberts asked about another hypothetical software case: whether you could patent the process of using a calculator to compute “the historical averages of oil consumption over a certain period and divide it by 2.” Stewart responded by drawing a distinction between a calculator with “preexisting functionality” to “crunch numbers” and a computer that “will be programmed with new software” and “given functionality it didn’t have before.” We’ll let readers judge for themselves whether this distinction makes any sense.

Stewart eventually backtracked and allowed that there were “difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations.” However, he suggested that Bilski was not the right case to address those questions because the patent at issue was not a software patent.

Reading the Supreme Court tea leaves

The justices’ interest in software patents is surprising because neither party to the case is advocating a change in the patentability of software (although some friend of the court briefs are). The government contended that the Supreme Court could adopt the “machine or transformation” test without disturbing the application of patents to software inventions. But the justices seemed skeptical, suggesting that it would be impossible to place meaningful limits on business method patents without also affecting a large number of software patents.

All of the high court’s recent patent decisions have been unanimous, so with the exception of Stevens and Breyer (who are on the record as patent skeptics) it’s difficult to judge where the other justices stand from their votes. Their comments during oral arguments may be the best indicator of their views. And this isn’t the first time justices have spontaneously raised concerns about software patentability. During the oral arguments in the 2007 AT&T v. Microsoft case, Justice Scalia joined Justices Breyer and Stevens in expressing skepticism about whether software could be patented. Justice Roberts’s skeptical questions on Monday suggest he may share their views.

The Supremes are unlikely to rule on the specifics of software patentability in a case that doesn’t involve an actual software patent. Therefore, the best outcome software patent critics can hope for is probably a decision upholding the “machine or transformation” test without specifically addressing the software patent issue. This would have the practical effect of invalidating the most egregious software patents while leaving the door open to a future case that deals squarely with the legal status of software patents.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/supremes-wrestle-with-business-method-software-patents.ars

REPORT: More than 25% of US bridges are “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete”

Here’s some bad news for all of us: Over 150,000 bridges in the U.S. have been judged to be “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.” And get this, there are less than 598,000 bridges in America. That means 25.7% aren’t in very good shape. It turns out that the state with the most structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (SD/FO) bridges is Texas, with 9,564 such bridges. However, Texas is ginormous – almost half the size of Alaska – and therefore has a lot of bridges, but the percentage of Texan SD/FO bridges is 19%. And that’s significantly lower than the national average.

What state has the most SD/FO bridges? Betcha never would have guessed the District of Columbia. For one thing, it’s not even a state! For another, you’d think being in such close proximity to all that Washingtonian largesse would be good for something. Turns out, not. Anyhow, 55% of the bridges in our nation’s capital are going to fall down/fail sooner than later says The Better Roads Bridge Inventory survey.

The actual State with the highest percentage of bad bridges is Rhode Island with 53%. Pennsylvania takes second place honors with 39%. The really bad news, according to the frighteningly detailed article, is that all these numbers might be low.

[Source: Better Roads via The Car Connection | Image: Scott Olson/Getty]

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/11/report-more-than-25-of-us-bridges-are-structurally-deficient/

Swarms of Tiny Robotic Ocean Explorers to Help With Marine Preservation…Or Become Fish Food

by Jaymi Heimbuch

Nope, it’s not a robotic fish. At least, not like what we’ve covered before. Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego have been awarded nearly $1 million from the National Science Foundation to create a whole new kind of robot, or rather robots. Lots of little robots that will collect lots of location-specific data that will help scientists learn more about marine ecosystems. But do we want lots of little floating robots in the oceans? Check out the video explaining why the scientists feel this will do far more good for marine ecosystems than harm.

Physorg reports, “While oceanographers have been skilled in detailing broad ocean processes, a need has emerged to zero in on functions unfolding at the small scale. By more clearly defining localized currents and focused data about temperature, salinity, pressure and biological properties, Jaffe and Franks believe [autonomous underwater explorers] AUEs will offer new and valued information about a range of oceanic phenomena.”

The hope for the robots is that they’ll be able to track very specific information about areas, such as what’s happening in marine protected areas, the health of nursery habitats, algae blooms and the dead zones they create, and other uses.

When you hear about tiny robots created to fill the oceans, you can’t help but connect a line to the issue we’re having with animals eating hunks of plastic floating in the Pacific Trash Vortex and elsewhere. What’s to stop marine life from eating these bits of swimming robots? Some will be about soccer-ball sized, and they won’t look like fish, which will make them less tempting for predators than the robotic fish currently being created. But these are just the “mothership” AUEs – others will be much smaller, floating along currents and transmitting information back to the larger AUEs. The smaller AUEs will be the ones to watch, ensuring they stay out of the bellies of hungry marine animals.

Oh, and did we mention they want school children to build the devices? Let’s strip away the impression of child labor, and instead look at it as a cool way to get kids interested in marine biology and technology.

“During the initial pilot phase of the project, Jaffe and members of his laboratory will build five or six of the soccer-ball-sized explorers and 20 of the smaller versions. An outreach component of the project will enlist school children to build and ultimately deploy AUEs.”

Tiny swarms of robots helping us understand the tiniest bits of our oceans – from plankton to temperature… It has the potential to be great, though putting more tiny things in the ocean doesn’t sound terribly appetizing.

Follow the link for a video - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/swarms-of-tiny-robotic-ocean-explorers-to-help-with-marine-preservation-or-become-fish-food-video.php

Land Use Change an Overlooked Cause of Global Warming

This seems kind of obvious to me.

Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone is publishing a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.

“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole — a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs — like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress — may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”

Article continues: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091111083055.htm

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/40693

New ‘FinFETs’ Promising For Smaller Transistors, More Powerful Chips

Researchers are making progress in developing new types of transistors, called finFETs, which use a finlike structure instead of the conventional flat design, possibly enabling engineers to create faster and more compact circuits and computer chips. The fins are made not of silicon, but from a material called indium-gallium-arsenide, as shown in this illustration. (Credit: Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University)

Purdue University researchers are making progress in developing a new type of transistor that uses a finlike structure instead of the conventional flat design, possibly enabling engineers to create faster and more compact circuits and computer chips.

The fins are made not of silicon, like conventional transistors, but from a material called indium-gallium-arsenide. Called finFETs, for fin field-effect-transistors, researchers from around the world have been working to perfect the devices as potential replacements for conventional transistors.

In work led by Peide Ye, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering, the Purdue researchers are the first to create finFETs using a technology called atomic layer deposition. Because atomic layer deposition is commonly used in industry, the new finFET technique may represent a practical solution to the coming limits of conventional silicon transistors.

“We have just demonstrated the proof of concept here,” Ye said.

Findings are detailed in three research papers being presented during the International Electron Devices Meeting on Dec. 7-9 in Baltimore. The work is led by doctoral student Yanqing Wu, who provided major contributions for two of the papers.

The finFETs might enable engineers to sidestep a problem threatening to derail the electronics industry. New technologies will be needed for industry to keep pace with Moore’s law, an unofficial rule stating that the number of transistors on a computer chip doubles about every 18 months, resulting in rapid progress in computers and telecommunications. Doubling the number of devices that can fit on a computer chip translates into a similar increase in performance. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to continue shrinking electronic devices made of conventional silicon-based semiconductors.

In addition to making smaller transistors possible, finFETs also might conduct electrons at least five times faster than conventional silicon transistors, called MOSFETs, or metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors.

“The potential increase in speed is very important,” Ye said. “The finFETs could enable industry to not only create smaller devices, but also much faster computer processors.”

Transistors contain critical components called gates, which enable the devices to switch on and off and to direct the flow of electrical current. In today’s chips, the length of these gates is about 45 nanometers, or billionths of a meter.

The semiconductor industry plans to reduce the gate length to 22 nanometers by 2015. However, further size reductions and boosts in speed are likely not possible using silicon, meaning new designs and materials will be needed to continue progress.

Indium-gallium-arsenide is among several promising semiconductor alloys being studied to replace silicon. Such alloys are called III-V materials because they combine elements from the third and fifth groups of the periodical table.

Creating smaller transistors also will require finding a new type of insulating layer essential for the devices to switch off. As gate lengths are made smaller than 22 nanometers, the silicon dioxide insulator used in conventional transistors fails to perform properly and is said to “leak” electrical charge.

One potential solution to this leaking problem is to replace silicon dioxide with materials that have a higher insulating value, or “dielectric constant,” such as hafnium dioxide or aluminum oxide.

The Purdue research team has done so, creating finFETs that incorporate the indium-gallium-arsenide fin with a so-called “high-k” insulator. Previous attempts to use indium-gallium-arsenide finFETs to make devices have failed because too much current leaks from the circuit.

The researchers are the first to “grow” hafnium dioxide onto finFETs made of a III-V material using atomic layer deposition. The approach could make it possible to create transistors using the thinnest insulating layers possible — only a single atomic layer thick.

The finlike design is critical to preventing current leakage, in part because the vertical structure can be surrounded by an insulator, whereas a flat device has the insulator on one side only.

The work is funded by the National Science Foundation and the Semiconductor Research Consortium and is based at the Birck Nanotechnology Center in Purdue’s Discovery Park.

---

Adapted from materials provided by Purdue University. Original article written by Emil Venere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110171746.htm

Heating, Air-Conditioning And Carpets May Be Hazardous To Your Health

Damp environments, poorly maintained heating and air-conditioning systems and carpeting may contribute to poor indoor air quality, according to experts at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) in Miami Beach, Fla. Americans spend about 90 percent of their time indoors, where they are repeatedly exposed to indoor allergens and airborne particles that can lead to respiratory symptoms and conditions.

Damp Buildings

“If there was just one thing I could do to fix buildings, it would be to change the relative humidity,” said Doug Garrett, CEM, CDSM, building scientist and president of Building Performance and Comfort, Leander, Texas. “Moisture leads to conditions that are conducive to dust mites and mold, as well as bacteria, yeast and other living organisms.”

Garrett pointed to dust mites and mold as particularly worrisome.

A damp building with high humidity may lead to increased levels of dust mites and mold, leading to increased allergic respiratory symptoms, as well as the worsening of asthma. And even if someone is not allergic, molds may produce mycotoxins and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) that smell bad and may cause respiratory irritation, he said.

Dust mites are microscopic arachnids that thrive in humidity. They cause allergic reactions and trigger asthma symptoms. Nearly half of all young people with asthma are allergic to dust mites; about 10 percent of the population is allergic to dust mites.

Mold requires moisture to grow. Indoor environments house many sources of moisture including condensation and leaky pipes.

Indoor Breathing Environment

Although there are many culprits that negatively affect indoor air quality, poorly maintained air-conditioning and carpeting are among the most problematic.

“A home’s heating and air-conditioning (HVAC) system, if poorly maintained, can become a major source of microbial allergens,” said Garrett.

According to Garrett, up to 30 percent of the air inside a home can come from the attic, parking garage or basement. One study supported by the EPA found that 75 percent of homes had carbon monoxide from the garage inside of the home.

Like air conditioning systems, carpeting often harbors allergens, including dust mites and molds said Jeffrey May, M.A., principal scientist of May Indoor Air Investigations LLC, Tyngsborough, Mass. Organisms and particles that become airborne eventually settle in carpeting. In damp environments, carpeting provides an ideal environment for mold growth.

“Many schools shampoo their carpeting right before school starts at the end of summer when it’s humid outside,” said May. “There couldn’t be a worse time.”

Making a Healthier Indoor Environment

To improve indoor air quality, Garrett lists several construction practices that, when done right, can make a significant difference. These include installing tight ductwork, achieving airtight construction, using a correctly sized HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system and making sure there is fresh air ventilation. Proper ventilation involves introducing air from a known source and then filtering, dehumidifying and pre-cooling or heating it.

“You can’t build houses too airtight,” said Garrett. “But you can under ventilate them.”

Once built, maintenance becomes key. May offers the following advice for home owners on making their indoor environments healthier: • Keep the air conditioner clean. Use a filter with an American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (AHRAE) Standard MERV (Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value) of at least 8. • Do not have carpeting in any buildings or homes where humidity can’t be controlled. If you cannot replace carpet, vacuum thoroughly, carefully and methodically so you don’t stir dust into the air. Use a vacuum with a HEPA filter or cyclonic vacuum. • Prevent mold by dehumidifying the basement. In unfinished basements, humidity should be kept lower than 50 percent. Do research before buying a dehumidifier. “There are scams out there” said May. “And ‘exhaust only’ systems are not effective.”

---

Adapted from materials provided by American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, via Newswise.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110211704.htm

Star Trek-like Replicator? Electron Beam Device Makes Metal Parts, One Layer At A Time

Electron beam freeform fabrication process. (Credit: NASA)

A group of engineers working on a novel manufacturing technique at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., have come up with a new twist on the popular old saying about dreaming and doing: “If you can slice it, we can build it.

That’s because layers mean everything to the environmentally-friendly construction process called Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication, or EBF3, and its operation sounds like something straight out of science fiction.

“You start with a drawing of the part you want to build, you push a button, and out comes the part,” said Karen Taminger, the technology lead for the Virginia-based research project that is part of NASA’s Fundamental Aeronautics Program.

She admits that, on the surface, EBF3 reminds many people of a Star Trek replicator in which, for example, Captain Picard announces out loud, “Tea, Earl Grey, hot.” Then there is a brief hum, a flash of light and the stimulating drink appears from a nook in the wall.

In reality, EBF3 works in a vacuum chamber, where an electron beam is focused on a constantly feeding source of metal, which is melted and then applied as called for by a drawing — one layer at a time — on top of a rotating surface until the part is complete.

While the options for using EBF3 are more limited than what science fiction allows, the potential for the process is no less out of this world, with promising relevance in aviation, spaceflight — even the medical community, Taminger said.

Commercial applications for EBF3 are already known and its potential already tested, Taminger said, noting it’s possible that, within a few years, some aircraft will be flying with large structural parts made by this process.

To make EBF3 work there are two key requirements: A detailed three-dimensional drawing of the object to be created must be available, and the material the object is to be made from must be compatible for use with an electron beam.

First, the drawing is needed to break up the object into layers, with each cross-section used to guide the electron beam and source of metal in reproducing the object, building it up layer by layer.

“If you take a slice through a typical truss, you can see a couple of dots in each cross-section that move as you go from layer to layer,” Taminger said. “When complete, you see those moving dots actually allowed you to build a diagonal brace into the truss.”

Second, the material must be compatible with the electron beam so that it can be heated by the stream of energy and briefly turned into liquid form, making aluminum an ideal material to be used, along with other metals.

In fact, the EBF3 can handle two different sources of metal — also called feed stock — at the same time, either by mixing them together into a unique alloy or embedding one material inside another.

The potential use for the latter could include embedding a strand of fiber optic glass inside an aluminum part, enabling the placement of sensors in areas that were impossible before, Taminger said.

While the EBF3 equipment tested on the ground is fairly large and heavy, a smaller version was created and successfully test flown on a NASA jet that is used to provide researchers with brief periods of weightlessness. The next step is to fly a demonstration of the hardware on the International Space Station, Taminger said.

Future lunar base crews could use EBF3 to manufacture spare parts as needed, rather than rely on a supply of parts launched from Earth. Astronauts might be able to mine feed stock from the lunar soil, or even recycle used landing craft stages by melting them.

But the immediate and greatest potential for the process is in the aviation industry where major structural segments of an airliner, or casings for a jet engine, could be manufactured for about $1,000 per pound less than conventional means, Taminger said.

Environmental savings also are made possible by deploying EBF3, she added.

Normally an aircraft builder might start with a 6,000-pound block of titanium and machine it down to a 300-pound part, leaving 5,700 pounds of material that needs to be recycled and using several thousand gallons of cutting fluid used in the process..

“With EBF3 you can build up the same part using only 350 pounds of titanium and machine away just 50 pounds to get the part into its final configuration,” Taminger said. “And the EBF3 process uses much less electricity to create the same part.”

While initial parts for the aviation industry will be simple shapes, replacing parts already designed, future parts designed from scratch with the EBF3 process in mind could lead to improvements in jet engine efficiency, fuel burn rate and component lifetime.

“There’s a lot of power in being able to build up your part layer by layer because you can get internal cavities and complexities that are not possible with machining from a solid block of material,” Taminger said.

---

Adapted from materials provided by NASA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110071535.htm

Boost Your Creativity with Eye Movement

Recent research published in the journal Brain and Cognition finds that people can boost the number and quality of their original ideas when they increase the interaction between the brain’s right and left hemispheres. Christie Nicholson reports

The formula for creative thinking is pretty elusive, but scientists have a few evidence-based clues. While the brain’s right hemisphere gets most of the credit for thinking outside the box, evidence shows that a collaborative effort between the right and left hemispheres may bring the best results.

Scientists say that it is the fixed rules of the left hemisphere that keeps a logical check on the broad brainstorming of the right hemisphere. So you wind up with super creative, yet practical, ideas.

In fact, a study published this week in the journal Brain and Cognition shows that when you boost the level of communication between the right and left hemispheres your creativity increases.

Sixty-two subjects performed a creativity task, where they had to come up with as many alternate uses for common objects like, a paper clip, pencil, shoe, etc. as they could in one minute.

After this initial task researchers asked subjects to move their eyes to follow a target as it moved horizontally left to right for 30 seconds. This exercise is thought to increase the cross-talk between the hemispheres.

Then the subjects completed the creative task again. Results were surprising. Subjects came up with significantly more unique uses for the everyday items, than the control group who stared straight ahead.

So when brainstorming ideas for that new Thanksgiving dish or the name of your unborn son, maybe try bilateral eye movement which, in the words of science, increases your inter-hemispheric interaction, and in turn increases your options.

—Christie Nicholson

[Above is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=boost-your-creativity-with-eye-move-09-11-10