<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>JohnBerry.org &#187; Science &amp; Technology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johnberry.org/category/science_technology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johnberry.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:15:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>An Image of a Molecule: WOW!!</title>
		<link>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/09/05/an-image-of-a-molecule-wow/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/09/05/an-image-of-a-molecule-wow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Berry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science & Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnberry.org/?p=98</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p class="wp-caption-text">The Way We Saw Molecules In The Past - Just A Drawing</p>
<p>Science has always fascinated me. As a teen I assumed that my life would be somehow involved in science. In high school I decided that I would study biology in college and then go from there. Life had other things planned and I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_99" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-99" title="A Molecule" src="http://www.johnberry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/molecule-300x183.jpg" alt="The Way We Saw Molecules In The Past - Just A Drawing" width="300" height="183" /><p class="wp-caption-text">The Way We Saw Molecules In The Past - Just A Drawing</p></div>
<p>Science has always fascinated me. As a teen I assumed that my life would be somehow involved in science. In high school I decided that I would study biology in college and then go from there. Life had other things planned and I never got to college. The fascination with science has never died. And what better time in the progression of scientific discovery that right now?</p>
<p>So now they have developed a method for imagining a molecule. Until now when we wanted to represent a molecule we could only do it with a graphic done by an artist. In our textbooks we would see the typical ball and stick figures that represented one molecule or another. That is one on the left.</p>
<p>But now, scientists at IBM have developed a method to actually image the chemical structure of a molecule. The method is called &#8220;non-contact atomic force microscopy.&#8221; They  focused on a single molecule of pentacene. The molecule is made up of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.</p>
<p>The result of this procedure is an amazing image of a pentacene molecule.</p>
<div id="attachment_101" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-101" title="Pentacene Molecule" src="http://www.johnberry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/3839799374_3543e7bde1-300x144.jpg" alt="Pentacene Molecule Imaged By IBM" width="300" height="144" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Pentacene Molecule Imaged By IBM</p></div>
<p>This is from the IBM supplied description: &#8220;The delicate inner structure of a pentacene molecule imaged with an atomic force microscope. For the first time, scientists achieved a resolution that revealed the chemical structure of a molecule. The hexagonal shapes of the five carbon rings in the pentacene molecule are clearly resolved. Even the positions of the hydrogen atoms around the carbon rings can be deduced from the image. (Pixels correspond to actual data points)&#8221;  Image courtesy of IBM Research – Zurich</p>
<p>IBM Research &#8211; Zurich scientists Fabian Mohn, Leo Gross, Nikolaj Moll (standing), Gerhard Meyer and Reto Schlittler (from left to right) in the STM/AFM laboratory. In front of them is the scanning tunneling/atomic force microscope used for the experiments. The team is reviewing the first-principles density functional theory calculations that corroborated the experimental findings of imaging the Pentacene molecule at atomic resolution.</p>
<div id="attachment_102" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-102" title="IBM Scientists" src="http://www.johnberry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/3842901900_27c5deb13e-300x199.jpg" alt="IBM Scientists" width="300" height="199" /><p class="wp-caption-text">IBM Scientists</p></div>
<p>You can read more at the IBM Research site: <a title="IBM Research" href="http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/09/pentacene.html" target="_blank">http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/09/pentacene.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/09/05/an-image-of-a-molecule-wow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>40 percent of Twitter messages &#8216;pointless babble&#8217;: study</title>
		<link>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/19/40-percent-of-twitter-messages-pointless-babble-study/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/19/40-percent-of-twitter-messages-pointless-babble-study/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Berry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science & Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnberry.org/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I stole that headline from the original article. Now to add a big &#8220;Duh&#8221;. Really, they needed to study that? Maybe they did, I would have thought it was closer to 80%. I am guessing, based on conversations I have overheard, that the same number of wireless phone calls are &#8220;pointless babble&#8221;. I have followed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stole that headline from the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.80c182849ca932a32a5eda49e4fe1b02.3b1&amp;show_article=1" target="_blank">original article</a>. Now to add a big &#8220;Duh&#8221;. Really, they needed to study that? Maybe they did, I would have thought it was closer to 80%. I am guessing, based on conversations I have overheard, that the same number of wireless phone calls are &#8220;pointless babble&#8221;. I have followed a few people on Twitter and ultimately found that they were a waste of time and a crashing bore. Some are informative, but very few.</p>
<p>The original study can be found at <a href="http://www.pearanalytics.com/2009/twitter-study-reveals-interesting-results-about-usage/" target="_blank">Pear Analytics</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/19/40-percent-of-twitter-messages-pointless-babble-study/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Counterfeit DNA</title>
		<link>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/18/counterfeit-dna/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/18/counterfeit-dna/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Berry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science & Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnberry.org/?p=48</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to an article in the New York Times: "Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases." And that is not good news.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to an article in the <a title="New York Times" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1" target="_blank">New York Times</a>: &#8220;Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.&#8221; And that is not good news.</p>
<p>While the article makes it clear that the ability to do this is not within the grasp of most people, it is still easy enough for &#8220;Any biology undergraduate could perform this.&#8221; That means that this is within the abilitiy tens of thousands of people. And that is a game-changer for law enforcement.</p>
<p>The good news is that the same company that developed the technique has also developed a test to determine if the DNA is natural or faked. But how long before someone takes the next step and compromises that test?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/08/18/counterfeit-dna/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Giant &#8217;soap bubble&#8217; floating in space</title>
		<link>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/07/29/giant-soap-bubble-floating-in-space/</link>
		<comments>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/07/29/giant-soap-bubble-floating-in-space/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Berry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Astronomy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science & Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnberry.org/?p=28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p class="wp-caption-text">Soap Bubble In Space</p>
<p>It looks like a soap bubble. It is called a planetary nebula. See a bigger picture and technical description at the NASA website: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081113.html</p>
<p>Science fascinates me and I vary from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, on which branch excites me more. Right now it is astronomy. Unlike so many on both sides of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_29" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 224px"><img class="size-medium wp-image-29" title="soap_bubble" src="http://www.johnberry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/soap_bubble-214x300.jpg" alt="Soap Bubble In Space" width="214" height="300" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Soap Bubble In Space</p></div>
<p>It looks like a soap bubble. It is called a planetary nebula. See a bigger picture and technical description at the NASA website: <a title="NASA - Cygnus Bubble" href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081113.html" target="_blank">http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081113.html</a></p>
<p>Science fascinates me and I vary from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, on which branch excites me more. Right now it is astronomy. Unlike so many on both sides of the debate I do not see a battle between a belief in God and the study of science. I may be more simple-minded than some and therefore not able to see the issues properly.</p>
<p>I do not see a battle between my belief that the heavens declare the glory of God and my belief that modern science does a fabulous job of exploring and explaining the world and the heavens.</p>
<p>Read more about it here: <a title="Cygnus Bubble" href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.100" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.100</a></p>
<p>And an in-depth story on its discovery is <a title="The Story Behind the Discovery of “The Cygnus Bubble” PN G 75.5+1.7" href="http://www.starimager.com/Image%20Gallery%20Pages/Hydrogen%20Alpha%20Images/ic%201318_AP_8%20pane%20mosaic_bubble%20nebula.htm" target="_blank">The Story Behind the Discovery of “The Cygnus Bubble” PN G 75.5+1.7.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.johnberry.org/2009/07/29/giant-soap-bubble-floating-in-space/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
