AtifKamal.com Blog

RAWALPINDI: Pakistan on Monday conducted a successful flight test of the indigenously developed Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) “Ra’ad”, said an Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release.

The Ra’ad missile, with a range of 350 km, enables Pakistan to achieve 'strategic standoff capability' on land and at sea.

“Cruise Technology” is extremely complex and has been developed by only a few countries in the world. The state of the art Ra’ad Cruise Missile with stealth capabilities is a low altitude, terrain hugging missile with high maneuverability; can deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with pin point accuracy.

Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lieutenant General Zubair Mahmood Hayat, while congratulating the scientists and engineers on achieving yet another milestone of historic significance, termed it a major step towards strengthening Pakistan’s full spectrum credible minimum deterrence capability. Pakistan’s strategic pursuits are aimed at achieving strategic stability in the region, he said.

He appreciated the technical prowess, dedication and commitment of scientists who contributed whole heartedly to make this launch a success.

He showed his full confidence over operational preparedness of strategic forces including employment and deployment concepts, refinement and training of all ranks in operational and technical domains.

The successful launch has been commended by President Mamnoon Hussain and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who have congratulated the scientists and engineers on their outstanding achievement.

Courtesy: http://www.dawn.com/news/1161034/

One of the fastest growing areas of the camcorder market is models that use removable flash memory cards to store video footage. While camcorders have long included flash memory card slots for saving still photos, it’s only recently that they’ve started using flash memory cards to replace tape, DVD and hard drives as the main storage medium in a camcorder.

SD/SDHC Cards

Every camcorder manufacturer except Sony uses Secure Digital (SD)and its close cousin Secure Digital High Capacity (SDHC) for their flash memory card-based camcorders. Some flash memory card makers such as Sandisk have begun marketing select SD and SDHC cards as “video” cards. But just because it calls itself a video card doesn’t mean it’s the right one for your camcorder. There are key differences you’ll have to be aware of.

SD/SDHC Card Capacities

SD cards are only available up to 2GB capacities, while SDHC cards are available in 4GB, 8GB, 16GB and 32GB capacities. The higher the capacity, the more video the card can store. If you’re purchasing a standard definition camcorder, you can get away with purchasing an SD card. If you’re considering a high definition camcorder that uses flash memory cards, you will need to purchase an SDHC card.

See this Beginners Guide to HD Camcorders for the difference between standard and high definition camcorders.

Compatibility

While there may be a few hidden exceptions, the overwhelming majority of camcorders on the market accept both SD and SDHC memory cards. If your camcorder says it’s compatible with SDHC cards, it can also accept SD cards. However, if it only accepts SD cards, it cannot accept SDHC cards.

Even if your camcorder accepts SDHC cards, it may not support all cards. Lower cost camcorders may not support higher capacity (16GB, 32GB) SDHC cards. You’ll have to dig around in the fine print to be sure that higher capacities cards are supported.

Speed

Speed matters. Especially when you’re capturing live audio and video using your digital camcorder, digital camera or digital audio recorder. As the demands of high definition video and audio increase,flash memory is stepping in as the de-facto solution for those who need high speed memory. High speed SD cards boast fast write times that ensure that no data is lost and that audio and video can be captured with minimal latency.

Choosing reliable, high speed SD cards is an obvious necessity. But the plurality of manufacturers offering SD cards makes it difficult to tell which is the fastest, or at least fast enough. The SD Association addresses this issue by maintaining a number of standards that help consumers choose SD cards based on speed.

Currently, the SD Association recognizes two Speed Classes: “Speed Class” and “UHS Speed Class.” Speed Class applies to SD, miniSD, microSD, SDHC, miniSDHC, microSDHC, SDXC and microSDXC cards. These are denoted by a class number within a C-shaped logo. The higher the class number, the faster the card. In order to bear the SD Speed Class logo, card manufacturers have to adhere to the minimum standards set out by the SD Association.

Class 2 is the slowest SD card speed. Class 2 has a write speed of about 2 Mb/s and is suitable for standard definition video recording. Class 4 and Class 6 have write speeds of about 4 Mb/s and 6 Mb/s, respectively, and can be used for HD video recording. These three classes of SD cards are designed to operate under the normal bus interface.

Class 10 SD cards have write speeds of 10 Mb/s and up and are designed to operate under the high speed bus interface.

Beyond Class 10 is the UHS Speed Class. UHS stands for ultra high speed and includes cards that have speeds up to 312 Mb/s. The UHS speed class logo includes a number contained within a U-shape. Currently, there is only one UHS speed class: UHS Speed Class 1, which is designed for the UHS bus interface. Cards in this class will usually be noted as SDHC UHS-I or SDXC UHS-I.

Note that in order to read/write to a SDHC UHS-I or SDXC UHS-I card, you’ll have to have a device that is capable of using both SDHC/SDXC and UHS-I cards. Note that you can use normal Speed Class cards in a device that supports UHS class cards.

What Speed Do You Need?

To help you find the right speed, SD/SDHC cards are broken down into four classes: Class 2, Class 4, Class 6 and Class 10. Class 2 cards offer a minimum sustained data rate of 2 megabytes per second (MBps), Class 4 of 4MBps and Class 6 of 6MBps and Class 10 of 10MBps. Depending on which manufacturer is selling the card, the speed class will either be prominently displayed or buried in the specs. Either way, look for it.

For standard definition camcorders, an SD/SDHC card with a Class 2 speed is all you would need. It’s fast enough to handle the highest quality standard definition video you can record. For high definition camcorders, you’re safest going with a Class 6 card. While you may be tempted to spring for a Class 10 card, you'll be paying for performance you don't need in a digital camcorder.

SDXC Cards

SDHC cards will be on the market for a while yet, but a successor has already arrived. The SDXC card looks like your average SD/SDHC card, but will eventually boast capacities as high as 2TB and data speeds as high as 300MBps. It will take years to hit those performance specs, of course, but it's fun imagining what type of camcorder would need such a high-powered card. To learn more about SDXC cards, see our buying guide here.

To improve the next generation of insect-size flying machines, Johns Hopkins engineers have been aiming high-speed video cameras at some of the prettiest bugs on the planet. By figuring out how butterflies flutter among flowers with amazing grace and agility, the researchers hope to help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers.

U.S. defense agencies, which have funded this research, are supporting the development of bug-size flyers to carry out reconnaissance, search-and-rescue and environmental monitoring missions without risking human lives. These devices are commonly called micro aerial vehicles or MAVs.

"For military missions in particular, these MAVs must be able to fly successfully through complex urban environments, where there can be tight spaces and turbulent gusts of wind," said Tiras Lin, a Whiting School of Engineering undergraduate who has been conducting the high-speed video research. "These flying robots will need to be able to turn quickly. But one area in which MAVs are lacking is maneuverability."

To address that shortcoming, Lin has been studying butterflies. "Flying insects are capable of performing a dazzling variety of flight maneuvers," he said. "In designing MAVs, we can learn a lot from flying insects."

Lin's research has been supervised by Rajat Mittal, a professor of mechanical engineering. "This research is important because it attempts to not only address issues related to bio-inspired design of MAVs, but it also explores fundamental questions in biology related to the limits and capabilities of flying insects," Mittal said.

To conduct this study, Lin has been using high-speed video to look at how changes in mass distribution associated with the wing flapping and body deformation of a flying insect help it engage in rapid aerial twists and turns. Lin, a junior mechanical engineering major from San Rafael, Calif., recently presented some of his findings at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society's Division of Fluid Dynamics. The student also won second-prize for his presentation of this research at a regional meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

"Ice skaters who want to spin faster bring their arms in close to their bodies and extend their arms out when they want to slow down," Lin said. "These positions change the spatial distribution of a skater's mass and modify their moment of inertia; this in turn affects the rotation of the skater's body. An insect may be able to do the same thing with its body and wings."

Butterflies move too quickly for someone to see these wing tactics clearly with the naked eye, so Lin, working with graduate student Lingxiao Zheng, used high-speed, high-resolution videogrammetry to mathematically document the trajectory and body conformation of painted lady butterflies. They accomplished this with three video cameras capable of recording 3,000 one-megapixel images per second. (By comparison, a standard video camera shoots 24, 30 or 60 frames per second.)

The Johns Hopkins researchers anchored their cameras in fixed positions and focused them on a small region within a dry transparent aquarium tank. For each analysis, several butterflies were released inside the tank. When a butterfly veered into the focal area, Lin switched on the cameras for about two seconds, collecting approximately 6,000 three-dimensional views of the insect's flight maneuvers. From these frames, the student typically homed in on roughly one-fifth of a second of flight, captured in 600 frames. "Butterflies flap their wings about 25 times per second," Lin said. "That's why we had to take so many pictures."

The arrangement of the three cameras allowed the researchers to capture three-dimensional data and analyze the movement of the insects' wings and bodies in minute detail. That led to a key discovery.

Source : http://phys.org/

Detailed Information links about this project :

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/07/johns-hopkins-researchers-develop-mav-the-size-of-a-bug/

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-butterfly-flight-bug-size-robots.html

http://www.robaid.com/robotics/analyzing-butterfly-flight-for-better-mav-maneuverability.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202151608.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 2, 2012) — To improve the next generation of insect-size flying machines, Johns Hopkins engineers have been aiming high-speed video cameras at some of the prettiest bugs on the planet. By figuring out how butterflies flutter among flowers with amazing grace and agility, the researchers hope to help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers.

U.S. defense agencies, which have funded this research, are supporting the development of bug-size flyers to carry out reconnaissance, search-and-rescue and environmental monitoring missions without risking human lives. These devices are commonly called micro aerial vehicles or MAVs.

"For military missions in particular, these MAVs must be able to fly successfully through complex urban environments, where there can be tight spaces and turbulent gusts of wind," said Tiras Lin, a Whiting School of Engineering undergraduate who has been conducting the high-speed video research. "These flying robots will need to be able to turn quickly. But one area in which MAVs are lacking is maneuverability."

To address that shortcoming, Lin has been studying butterflies. "Flying insects are capable of performing a dazzling variety of flight maneuvers," he said. "In designing MAVs, we can learn a lot from flying insects."

Lin's research has been supervised by Rajat Mittal, a professor of mechanical engineering. "This research is important because it attempts to not only address issues related to bio-inspired design of MAVs, but it also explores fundamental questions in biology related to the limits and capabilities of flying insects," Mittal said.

To conduct this study, Lin has been using high-speed video to look at how changes in mass distribution associated with the wing flapping and body deformation of a flying insect help it engage in rapid aerial twists and turns. Lin, a junior mechanical engineering major from San Rafael, Calif., recently presented some of his findings at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society's Division of Fluid Dynamics. The student also won second-prize for his presentation of this research at a regional meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

"Ice skaters who want to spin faster bring their arms in close to their bodies and extend their arms out when they want to slow down," Lin said. "These positions change the spatial distribution of a skater's mass and modify their moment of inertia; this in turn affects the rotation of the skater's body. An insect may be able to do the same thing with its body and wings."

Butterflies move too quickly for someone to see these wing tactics clearly with the naked eye, so Lin, working with graduate student Lingxiao Zheng, used high-speed, high-resolution videogrammetry to mathematically document the trajectory and body conformation of painted lady butterflies. They accomplished this with three video cameras capable of recording 3,000 one-megapixel images per second. (By comparison, a standard video camera shoots 24, 30 or 60 frames per second.)

The Johns Hopkins researchers anchored their cameras in fixed positions and focused them on a small region within a dry transparent aquarium tank. For each analysis, several butterflies were released inside the tank. When a butterfly veered into the focal area, Lin switched on the cameras for about two seconds, collecting approximately 6,000 three-dimensional views of the insect's flight maneuvers. From these frames, the student typically homed in on roughly one-fifth of a second of flight, captured in 600 frames. "Butterflies flap their wings about 25 times per second," Lin said. "That's why we had to take so many pictures."

The arrangement of the three cameras allowed the researchers to capture three-dimensional data and analyze the movement of the insects' wings and bodies in minute detail. That led to a key discovery.

Earlier published research pointed out that an insect's delicate wings possess very little mass compared to the bug's body. As a result, those scholars concluded that changes in spatial distribution of mass associated with wing flapping did not need to be considered in analyzing an insect's flight maneuverability and stability. "We found out that this commonly accepted assumption was not valid, at least for insects such as butterflies," Lin said. "We learned that changes in moment of inertia, which is a property associated with mass distribution, plays an important role in insect flight, just as arm and leg motion does for ice skaters and divers."

He said this discovery should be considered by MAV designers and may be useful to biologists who study insect flight dynamics.

Lin's newest project involves even smaller bugs. With support from a Johns Hopkins Provost's Undergraduate Research Award, he has begun aiming his video cameras at fruit flies, hoping to solve the mystery of how these insects manage to land upside down on perches.

The insect flight dynamics research was funded by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

Source : http://www.sciencedaily.com

The project was aimed to enhance the know-how of young scientists and engineers about communication satellite engineering. The philosophy was to design a satellite such as it would fly, however, while implementing the design, use commercial components to keep the cost low since the satellite will only be a functional lab model.

Prototype Paksat-1R is a communication satellite, which has three C-band Transponders as the communication payload. All the subsystems have been designed and developed indigenously. Integration and testing have also been performed. The project was completed in three years time.

The satellite bus comprised the following subsystems:

(i) Computer (based on Intel 80188EB microprocessor)

(ii) Power subsystem with the following main modules:

a. Power Distribution
b. Power Control
c. Battery Charging and Discharging
d. BAPTA

(iii) Telemetry subsystem

a.Microcontroller based
b.FPGA based

(iv) Telecommand subsystem

a.Microcontroller based
b.FPGA based

(v) Attitude and Orbit Determination and Control subsystem

(vi) S-band RF communication subsystem (for telemetry and telecommand)

(vii) Thermal Control subsystem

(viii) Satellite Structure

(ix) Mechanisms for:

a.Antenna Deployment
b.Solar Array Deployment

Pictures below show some of the subsystems and the complete satellite:

PakSat 1R Prototype

Analog Telemetry Acquisition                        C Band Transponder Unit

On Board Computer                                     Power Sub System  

Solar Array                                                      Satellite Structure

Did you just drop your cellphone in water? Or maybe you'd like to know what to do if that happens! This week on Upgrade Your Life, Yahoo! News' Becky Worley shows us first aid techniques for rescuing a drowned smartphone.

To test them out, Becky took a BlackBerry, a Droid, and an iPhone, and dropped all three into room temperature water for 60 seconds. Then she went through the following steps:

Step 1: Do NOT turn on the phone

Why do water and smartphones not mix? Because the water shorts out your smartphone's electrical circuits. So whatever you do, don't turn it on to check to see if it still works.

Step 2: Pull out the battery and SIM card

You want to remove anything removable: Pull out the battery, the SIM card and the memory card, if your phone has one. As long as that battery's in there it's providing power to your phone, and that's what you need to stop immediately.

Some phones, like the iPhone, don't have a removable battery. Unfortunately, you'll just have to skip this step and hope for the best if you dunk one of them.

Step 3: Freshwater rinse

Did you drop your phone in salt water? The salt can corrode your device. So after you pull out the battery and SIM card, immerse your phone in fresh water to rinse out the salt.

Step 4: Dry your phone using compressed air

If you have a compressed air can handy -- the kind that's used to clean computers or keyboards -- run it full-blast all over your phone, with the back cover taken off if you can. A vacuum cleaner also works, even though it's pulling the air in the other direction. As long as it's blowing cool air over those circuits to dry them out, it's all good.

Don't stick your phone in the oven, even on low. The heat can warp your phone's circuits, and melt its internal components. You shouldn't use a blow dryer either, unless it has a heatless setting. A fan might help, but a microwave is out of the question.

Step 5: Cover your phone with uncooked rice

The premise of our experiment was to test if putting a wet phone into a sealed container of rice would actually dry it out, and bring it back form the dead. See, the idea behind the rice is that the dry grains will absorb moisture. So get a sealable plastic container, and fill it with enough rice to cover your smartphone. (A plastic zipper bag will work too, in a pinch.) Then bury your phone in the rice, along with its battery and other parts. You'll want to wait at least 24 hours for the rice to do its job -- Becky waited for 48 hours, in her test.

What would work better than rice? Silica gel, the stuff in those packets that keep new clothes or shoes dry. But most of us don't have a shoebox full of the stuff laying around, so rice will probably have to do. It may get pieces of rice into the crevices and cavities in your smartphone, but this is an emergency, and time is of the essence.

Should you use white or brown rice? It doesn't matter, so long as it's hard and dry and uncooked. You can even use rice from boxed meals like Rice-a-Roni. Just don't add in the seasoning packet, unless you want your phone to smell like mixed vegetables.

Step 6: Turn your phone back on

After you've waited at least 24 hours, it's time for the moment of truth. Reassemble your phone, charge it and try to power it on.

The results of our experiment weren't encouraging: the BlackBerry that Becky tested did restart, with no seeming long-term damage. But the iPhone and the Droid were dead. After two days in the rice and a full battery charge, neither phone came back to life.

One in three may be slim odds. But since water damage isn't covered by most warranties, it can't hurt to try.

May 31, 2011 -- The expert panel that evaluates cancer risks today said that cell phones might possibly cause brain cancer.

The announcement comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Like the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society relies on IARC for evaluation of cancer risks.

"After reviewing all the evidence available, the IARC working group classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans," panel chairman Jonathan Samet, MD, chair of preventive medicine at the USC Keck School of Medicine, said at a news teleconference. "We reached this conclusion based on a review of human evidence showing increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, in association with wireless phone use."

In finding cell phones to be "possibly carcinogenic," the IARC means that heavy cell phone use might -- or might not -- cause a specific form of brain cancer called glioma. The finding means that research is urgently needed to find out whether cell phones actually cause cancer, and how they might do it.

The IARC estimates that some 5 billion people worldwide have mobile phones. Lifetime exposure to the magnetic fields created by the phones -- particularly when they are held tightly against the head -- rapidly is increasing.

Children are at particular risk, not only because their skulls are thinner but also because their lifetime exposure to cell phones likely will be greater than the exposure of current adults.

Putting Possible Cancer Risk in Perspective

It's important to put the possible risk into context. Kurt Straif, MD, PhD, MPH, head of the IARC Monographs Program, notes that the IARC currently lists some 240 agents as "possibly carcinogenic," including dry cleaning fluid and some commonly used pesticides.

While the IARC doesn't make recommendations to consumers, Straif noted that there are precautions people can take.

"Some of the highest exposures come from using mobile phones for voice calls. If you text, or use hands-free devices, you lower exposure by at least [10-fold]," Straif said at the news conference. "So this is left to consumers to consider whether this level of evidence is enough for them to take such precautions."

Otis W. Brawley, MD, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, notes that the IARC is a highly credible group. But Brawley echoes Straif's advice: People who are worried can reduce their risk.

"On the other hand, if someone is of the opinion that the absence of strong scientific evidence on the harms of cell phone use is reassuring, they may take different actions, and it would be hard to criticize that," Brawley says in a news release.

John Walls, vice president for public affairs at CTIA, the trade group representing the wireless communications industry, notes that the IARC findings do not mean cell phones cause cancer -- and that the limited evidence on which the findings are based are far from conclusive.

"Based on previous assessments of the scientific evidence, the Federal Communications Commission has concluded that '[t]here’s no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer.' The Food and Drug Administration has also stated that '[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems,'" Walls notes in a news release.

Samet and colleagues will publish a summary of their findings in the July 1 issue of The Lancet, which is still in press.

Courtesy : http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20110531/expert-panel-cell-phones-might-cause-brain-cancer?ecd=wnl_nal_060111

Mobile phone users may be at increased risk from brain cancer and should use texting and free-hands devices to reduce exposure, the World Health Organisation's cancer experts said.

Radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by such devices are "possibly carcinogenic to humans," the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced at the end of an eight-day meeting in Lyon, France.

Experts "reached this classification based on review of the human evidence coming from epidemiological studies" pointing to an increased incidence of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, said Jonathan Samet, president of the work group.

Two studies in particular, the largest conducted over the last decade, showed a higher risk "in those that had the most intensive use of such phones," he said in a telephone news conference.

Some individuals tracked in the studies had used their phones for an average of 30 minutes per day over a period of 10 years.

"We simply don't know what might happen as people use their phones over longer time periods, possibly over a lifetime," Samet said.

There are about five billion mobile phones registered in the world. The number of phones and the average time spent using them have both climbed steadily in recent years.

The CTIA-The Wireless Association dismissed the report saying the UN agency "conducts numerous reviews and in the past has given the same score to, for example, pickled vegetables and coffee."

This classification "does not mean cell phones cause cancer," the industry association said in a statement, noting that "limited evidence from statistical studies can be found even though bias and other data flaws may be the basis for the results."

The IARC cautioned that current scientific evidence showed only a possible link, not a proven one, between wireless devices and cancers.

"There is some evidence of increased risk of glioma" and another form of non-malignant tumour called acoustic neuroma, said Kurt Straif, the scientist in charge of editing the IARC reports on potentially carcinogenic agents.

"But it is not at the moment clearly established that the use of mobile phones does in fact cause cancer in humans," he said.

The IARC does not issue formal recommendations, but experts pointed to a number of ways consumers can reduce risk.

"What probably entails some of the highest exposure is using your mobile for voice calls," Straif said.

"If you use it for texting, or as a hands-free set for voice calls, this is clearly lowering the exposure by at least an order of magnitude," or by tenfold, he said.

A year ago the IARC concluded that there was no link between cell phones and brain cancer, but that earlier report was criticised as based on data that was out of date.

The new review, conducted by a panel of 31 scientists from 14 countries, was reached on the basis of a "full consensus," said Robert Baan, in charge of the written report, yet to be released.

"This is the first scientific evaluation of all the literature published on the topic with regard to increased risk of cancer," he said.

But the panel stressed the need for more research, pointing to incomplete data, evolving technology and changing consumer habits.

"There's an improvement in the technology in terms of lower emissions but at the same time we see increased use, so it is hard to know how the two balance out," Baan noted.

The IARC ranks potentially cancer-causing elements as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic or "probably not carcinogenic". It can also determine that a material is "not classifiable".

Cigarettes, sunbeds and asbestos, for example, fall in "Group 1", the top threat category.

Cell phones now join glass wool and gasoline exhaust in Group 2B as "possibly carcinogenic".

Industry groups reacted cautiously, pointing to other common consumer items -- including coffee and vegetables pickled in chemicals -- that are included in the same category.

"In France, the health ministry already applies a precautionary approach to cell phones because it considers that no danger has been established, that doubts remain and, thus, that more research is needed," the French Federation of Telecoms said in a statement.

Some consumer advocacy groups said the new classification was overdue.

"As of today, no one can say the risk does not exist, and now everyone -- politicians, telecoms, employers, consumers and parents -- have to take this into account," said Janine Le Calvez, head of PRIARTEM, a consumer advocacy group concerned with cell phone safety.

Courtesy: SamaTV

NOW EVERYONE OF US CAN HAVE A CAR.