|
Dear
Subscriber,
We
have a great Fifth International
Conference on Future Energy coming
up and look forward to your continued
support. It is important to announce
that I have been appointed the Conference
Coordinator and Technical and Publications
Chairperson for the SPESIF-COFE5
event coming up February 29 to March 2,
2012. Many of the deadlines now are much more
flexible (send in your abstract for energy,
propulsion or bioenergetics topic for
consideration even up until the end of 2011). It
also means that IRI will consider a group of
papers, without a
physical presence requirement. We are
planning to offer Webcasting of the event as well
as a Remote Presentation capability for those who
cannot make the trip but would like to present
over the Internet. This is a vital and important
energy conference folks. All of the quality papers
from COFE4 that were
generously this
year are now online. View
ALL of the SPESIF2011 and COFE4 papers and
download ANY of them for FREE (pdf):
Physics Procedia -
ScienceDirect (c) Elsevier B.V.
Elsevier
Science has been contracted for COFE4 and COFE5 to
replace the American Institute of Physics
publisher. We feel that Elsevier
is better in many regards and also most
importantly, embraces all of the energy topics
that we entertain.
Looking
at our top story, IRI consulted one of the world's
experts in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
(LENR) to get his opinion of the
Rossi
development. It is worthwhile to note that
Dr.
George Miley has equaled the
Rossi performance and is well known in the field
for many years.
The
Venture Capital article can be a resource guide
for those doing research. The article looking on
the bright side of solar energy after Solyndra is
also very valuable for predicting future energy
trends, as well as the last article on recharging
a battery in ten minutes.
For
those bioenergy fans, who keep asking us for more
articles on the topic, we want to emphasize
the significance of the #5 article that announces,
"Cancer Craves Killer Free Radicals". If ever
there was a reason to boost your electronic
antioxidants throughout the day, we believe that
this is one of the most convincing. Furthermore,
IRI has developed, under Dr. Jacqueline Panting's
direction, "Therapeutic Electronics Antioxidant
Clothing" (patent pending) which answers the
concerned senior citizen's need for daily free
radical protection far exceeding pills or potions.
This is because electrons are
antioxidants. See http://www.inventionhome.com/InvPortfolio/Portfolio/TV013678/virtual/TV013678.html
for more details of the solution to the free
radical disease and aging threat.
Thomas Valone,
PhD, PE Editor
www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org | |
and
save 30%
|
| |
1) Several Scientists
Achieving Success with LENR
|
Integrity
Research Institute Press Release October
2011
Ed.Note:
Many scientists have been diligently working on
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions for years and lately
their efforts seem to be paying off. Andrea
Rossi from ECat is getting quite a bit of media
attention, but there are many others. Among
them, Dr George Miley, Professor Emeritus at
University of Illinois. Dr. Miley is
internationally known for his pioneering research
in condensed matter nuclear science, for which he
received the Preparata Medal 2006-2007 and the
1996 Edward Teller Medal for ICF research. He is a
Guggenheim Fellow and a Senior NATO Fellow.
He received the 2006 "Integrity in Science" Award
from our Institute.
|
Dr Miley receiving
the 'Integrity In Research"Award from Dr
Valone at
COFE2 | We contacted, Dr
Miley, fresh from presenting his latest paper at
the World Green Energy
Conference to give us an update on the
work being performed by his team which includes
a Postdoc and 5 students.
Dr. Miley states:
" Yes, we are getting some good gas loading
results at the 100s of watt level!!
Basically we fill a
pressure tube with about20 g of nanoparticles and
then open a valve to quickly pressurize with D2
(or H2) up to 4 ATM. The particles start heating
due to the exothermic heat of adsorption.
Then a some point the LENR reactions are triggered
adding additional heating. The system will
eventual come to an equilibrium condition with the
heat source being the LENR reactions. If the gas
pressure is released, the temperature would
normally drop due to the endothermic effect of
desorption of the gas, but the LENR heat effect
actually continues for a time due to the gas flux
and remaining loading in the nanoparticles.
This causes a temperature rise followed by a slow
drop off. However, we still have much to do to
confirm and fully understand these results. Plus
we need to work on the nano-particle production to
be sure we have reproducible particles - and
operation. We have been considering (along with
others) commercializing small 100 W units rapidly
in order to get this into the open and change
public attitudes. (others at the WGES meeting were
pushing for much larger commercial units for
specific applications). However, we have not yet
had time to give much thought to the engineering
design a practical unit. Our current lab unit has
excellent vacuum pumps, heating-cooling controls,
etc. which would not be on a "market" type sealed
unit. Also, we need to consider liability
issues (the combination of hydrogen and
nanoparticles = a potential but manageable risk)
plus some low level radioactivity".
Another very
important target is to develop a 3 kW energy to
replace the Pu239 heat source in Radioisotopic
Thermoelectric Generators used by NASA in
almost all space probes to date. LENR unit scale
very nicely heat wise vs. Pu239, but has minimum
radioactivity and a very log operational time with
adequate gas supply. NASA scientists at NASA Glenn
Labs who work on RTGs have expressed great
interest in this possibility.
Success
for Andrea Rossi's
E-Cat http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success
|
Andrea Rossi.
Photo Courtesy
Focus.it |
Against
all the odds, Andrea Rossi's E-Cat cold
fusion power plant passed its biggest test
yesterday, producing an average of 470 kilowatts
for more than five hours. (A technical glitch
prevented it from achieving a megawatt as
originally planned). The demonstration was
monitored closely by engineers from Rossi's
mysterious US customer, which was evidently
satisfied and paid up.
The
energy was output in the form of heat, measured by
the quantity of water boiled off. The results are
reported in NyTeknik and
Pure Energy Systems
News, who both had reporters present for
the test. Associated Press also sent a
correspondent who should be filing a story in the
next few days (one suspects his editors might have
some questions).
But
this does not mean we can crack open the champagne
and celebrate the end of fossil fuels quite yet.
Skeptics have plenty of grounds to doubt whether
the new test really takes us any further
forwards.
For
a start, the US customer remains anonymous. In
other words, a group of unknown, unverifiable
people carried out tests which cannot be
checked.
Secondly,
observers apart from the customer were only
allowed to view the test for a few minutes at a
time and during the entire test the E-Cat remained
connected to a power supply by a cable. The
external power was supposedly turned off; as a
demonstration it would have been more impressive
for the reactor in its shipping container to be
visibly disconnected while operating.
The
successful test should pave the way for further
work at the University of Bologna, and more
contracts with the enigmatic customer. NyTeknik
did discover one possible clue to their identity.
The customer's controller, one Domenico
Fioravanti, apparently reports to a man whose
title is "Colonel". This suggests that the mystery
customer might be DARPA, the Pentagon's extreme
science wing which, as Wired.co.uk has previously noted,
has expressed interest in Rossi's work -- but
which might not be quite ready to explain to its
political masters why it spent millions on a cold
fusion device.
Plenty
of mysteries remain. But the game just got a lot
more interesting. Don't miss: The history of Rossi's
E-Cat
RELATED
NEWS
Many other
scientists have been working for over 20 years to
successfully bring LENR-Cold Fusion to
market. Below are some links for further
information. Rossi's October 28
tests by Pure
Energy Systems
Cold Fusion Times, edited By Dr
Mitchell Swartz
NUCAT energy
SPAWAR/US Navy Report Supports Cold
Fusion
|
2) Absolute Speed
Barrier Broken by CERN |
By
Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, September 22,
5:59 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/absolute-speed-barrier-broken-cern-claims-neutrinos-clocked-traveling-faster-than-light/2011/09/22/gIQA5Sn9nK_story.html?hpid=z1
Ed.
Note: This discovery opens the door for
discussion of other objects exceeding the speed of
light. See IRI Report "Faster Than Light" for
reference articles on this important subject.
-TV
|
CERN project at Geneva,
Switzerland |
GENEVA - One of the very pillars
of physics and Einstein's theory of relativity -
that nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- was rocked Thursday by new findings from one of
the world's foremost laboratories.
European researchers said they
clocked an oddball type of subatomic particle
called a neutrino going faster than the 186,282
miles per second that has long been considered the
cosmic speed limit.
The claim was met with
skepticism, with one outside physicist calling it
the equivalent of saying you have a flying carpet.
In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready
to proclaim a discovery and are asking other
physicists to independently try to verify their
findings.
"The feeling that most people
have is this can't be right, this can't be real,"
said James Gillies, a spokesman for the European
Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, which
provided the particle accelerator that sent
neutrinos on their breakneck 454-mile trip
underground from Geneva to Italy.
Going faster than light is
something that is just not supposed to happen
according to Einstein's 1905 special theory of
relativity - the one made famous by the equation E
equals mc2. But no one is rushing out to rewrite
the science books just yet.
|
Einstein at a Lecture
on the Speed of Light in
1934. |
It is "a revolutionary discovery
if confirmed," said Indiana University theoretical
physicist Alan Kostelecky, who has worked on this
concept for a quarter of a century.
Stephen Parke, who is head
theoretician at the Fermilab near Batavia, Ill.,
and was not part of the research, said: "It's a
shock. It's going to cause us problems, no doubt
about that - if it's true."
Even if these results are
confirmed, they won't change at all the way we
live or the way the world works. After all, these
particles have presumably been speed demons for
billions of years. But the finding will
fundamentally change our understanding of how the
universe operates, physicists said.
Einstein's special relativity
theory, which says that energy equals mass times
the speed of light squared, underlies "pretty much
everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a
theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved
in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up
until now."
France's National Institute for
Nuclear and Particle Physics Research collaborated
with Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory on the
experiment at CERN.
CERN reported that a neutrino
beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva
to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy
traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of
light. Scientists calculated the margin of error
at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference
statistically significant.
Given the enormous implications
of the find, the researchers spent months checking
and rechecking their results to make sure there
were no flaws in the experiment.
A team at Fermilab had similar
faster-than-light results in 2007, but a large
margin of error undercut its scientific
significance. If anything is going to
throw a cosmic twist into Einstein's theories,
it's not surprising that it's the strange
particles known as neutrinos. These are odd
slivers of an atom that have confounded physicists
for about 80 years.
The neutrino has almost no mass,
comes in three different "flavors," may have its
own antiparticle and has been seen shifting from
one flavor to another while shooting out from our
sun, said physicist Phillip Schewe, communications
director at the Joint Quantum Institute in
Maryland.
|
Dario Auterio and
Antonio Ereditato of the OPERA
experiment. |
Columbia University physicist
Brian Greene, author of the book "Fabric of the
Cosmos," said neutrinos theoretically can travel
at different speeds depending on how much energy
they have. And some mysterious particles whose
existence is still only theorized could be
similarly speedy, he said.
Fermilab team spokeswoman Jenny
Thomas, a physics professor at the University
College of London, said there must be a "more
mundane explanation" for the European findings.
She said Fermilab's experience showed how hard it
is to measure accurately the distance, time and
angles required for such a claim.
Nevertheless, the Fermilab team,
which shoots neutrinos from Chicago to Minnesota,
will go back to work immediately to try to verify
or knock down the new findings, Thomas
said.
And that's exactly what the team
in Geneva wants.
Gillies told The Associated Press
that the readings have so astounded researchers
that "they are inviting the broader physics
community to look at what they've done and really
scrutinize it in great detail, and ideally for
someone elsewhere in the world to repeat the
measurements."
Drew Baden, chairman of the
physics department at the University of Maryland,
said it is far more likely that there are
measurement errors or some kind of fluke. Tracking
neutrinos is very difficult, he said.
"This is ridiculous what they're
putting out," Baden said, calling it the
equivalent of claiming that a flying carpet is
invented only to find out later that there was an
error in the experiment somewhere. "Until this is
verified by another group, it's flying carpets.
It's cool, but ..."
So if the neutrinos are pulling
this fast one on Einstein, how can it
happen? Parke said there could be a
cosmic shortcut through another dimension -
physics theory is full of unseen dimensions - that
allows the neutrinos to beat the speed of
light.
Indiana's Kostelecky theorizes
that there are situations when the background is
different in the universe, not perfectly
symmetrical as Einstein says. Those changes in
background may change both the speed of light and
the speed of neutrinos.
But that doesn't mean Einstein's
theory is ready for the trash heap, he
said. "I don't think you're going to
ever kill Einstein's theory. You can't. It works,"
Kostelecky said. Just there are times when an
additional explanation is needed, he
said.
If the European findings are
correct, "this would change the idea of how the
universe is put together," Columbia's Greene said.
But he added: "I would bet just about everything I
hold dear that this won't hold up to
scrutiny."
___ Borenstein
reported from Washington.
|
3)
Venture Capital for Energy
Innovation |
Energy Business Reports,
October, 2011,
http://www.energybusinessreports.com/shop/item.asp?itemid=3510
Ed.
Note:
While this may be an expensive report for most
readers, the list of venture capital firms in the
Table of Contents below is invaluable. For
example, I have met Vinod Kholsa and read his
articles in Scientific
American and elsewhere. He knows what
he wants yet is open-minded for that breakthrough
energy discovery. - TV
2010
Worldwide Renewable Energy Investment Skyrockets
32% to US$211 Billion
VENTURE CAPITAL TABLE OF
CONTENTS With
the rise of alternative energy companies, there
are a large number of venture capitalists
investing in the energy industry, particularly in
companies specializing in renewable energy. And
for the first time, the developing world has
overtaken richer countries in new investment.
Venture Capital for Energy Innovation
assesses growth opportunities in the alternative
energy, energy efficiency, and carbon reduction
sectors among leading startup firms. Funding
opportunities with a guide to angel investment,
technical assistance, and incubator facilities is
also provided.
This research report
analyzes the growing venture capital investments
in the renewable energy industry. The report
profiles the leading venture capitalists who are
investing in the energy industry, along with an
analysis of the market, the investments attracted
by major companies in this industry, along with
the challenges faced by VCs investing in renewable
energy.
The National Venture Capital
Association categorizes the cleantech sector as
ventures involving alternative energy, energy
efficiency, and environmental controls. But energy
innovation investing is not limited to just the
clean tech sector.
Recent VC-funded energy
innovations include algae-based biofuels,
cellulosic ethanol, concentrator-based solar power
generation, cylindrical solar panels, electro-
chemical energy storage systems, energy storage
systems for wind farms, enhanced geothermal
systems, LED light bulbs, low-cost photovoltaic
cells, modular-scale nuclear power generation,
municipal waste-to-biofuel conversion, small-scale
hydrogen generators for fuel-cell vehicles, tidal
turbine generators, and wave energy generating
systems.
|
4)
Beyond Solyndra, Ten Reasons why
Solar will Win
|
Ed. Note:
Ironically,
one could argue it was the explosion of the solar
industry and the falling price of silicon solar
modules that played a big role in Solyndra's
demise. -TV
By now the
financial, political, and
emotional fallout from the recent
Solyndra bankruptcy filing is
running at full tilt. Print, online, and social
media channels are filled with the appropriate
questions about what happened -- who's
responsible, who's accountable, and who's going to
pay for it? Incumbent energy providers, including
coal and oil, along with many politicians are
cynically rushing to tout this event as the
beginning of the end for renewable energy, while
others see Solyndra's collapse as merely a
singular event that is part of an inevitable
macro-trend toward a 21st century clean
economy.
However, in reality,
Solyndra was not the entire solar industry. It was
just a manufacturer and supplier to the industry.
Citing Solyndra as a grave indicator of the end of
the solar industry is like noting that the demise
of Goodyear would end the auto industry. As long
as solar makes economic sense; systems will
continue to be deployed.
So how about we all
take a breath, step back, and look at what's
happening in the bigger picture that is the global
energy business.
There are no silver
solar bullets to America's energy needs -- but
there is solar buckshot.
Solar
Buckshot, aka Top 10 Reasons Why Solar Energy Will
Win
10. A job is
a job is a job.
With all this talk
about green jobs, clean jobs, and other kinds of
jobs -- how about we just call it a job? A job
that puts food on the table, pays the bills, keeps
the kids in clothes, and affords the occasional
family night out. And, if you subscribe to the
belief that all is lost due to the Chinese PV
manufacturing juggernaut, keep in mind that you
can't export the thousands of business
development, sales, design, engineering,
installation, and service jobs we're going to need
every year.
But opinion only
matters if the data supports it. Solar is one of
the only industries adding private sector jobs in
our struggling economy -- with 6.8 percent
growth from August 2010 to August 2011,
when overall U.S. job growth was only 0.7 percent
and when fossil fuel generators actually cut jobs
by 2 percent. It's estimated the United States
already has over 90,000 direct and indirect jobs
in the manufacturing and installation of solar
panels. That's more than in either steel
production or coal mining (not including
transportation and power plant
employment).
9. Fastest
growing sector of the economy.
Growth is a good for
everyone. U.S. solar photovoltaic installation
increased by an impressive average annual rate of
64 percent between 2005 and 2010, with over
70 percent of the value of solar products
and installations produced here at home.
Solar is already up and delivering in 21
states, representing two-thirds of
America's population.
8. The voters
are ahead of the politicians and the media.
Despite what you hear
from political ideologues and read about in the
news, Americans want more homegrown,
renewable, clean energy. They want it not
only because it will make the air they breathe
cleaner, but because they know that competition
for their money is a good thing and that economic
growth will come with the continued growth of a
homegrown industry. Americans are also tired of
borrowing money from China to pay for energy we
import from many countries that are not our
friends.
7. It is
about prices.
Solar energy is
already affordable in many states and cities. A
new report by Lawrence Berkeley Labs
(LBL) shows how rapidly solar prices are
falling. In its analysis, LBL shows that the
average cost of installed solar photovoltaic was
$6.20/watt for systems installed in 2010, falling
17 percent from 2009 and 43 percent below 1998.
Prices fell an additional 11 percent from 2010 to
the first half of 2011. Since 2008, panel prices
alone have declined 61 percent, with 30 percent of
this reduction happening this year. Large
commercial rooftops systems are now being
installed for less than $3 per watt DC --
approaching the SunShot goals set
by DOE only this year. So in case you've missed
it, "solar past does not equal solar present."
Solar is rapidly reaching the point where it
competes with traditional energy on price -- even
without the kind of taxpayer subsidies that coal
and natural gas have received for
decades.
6. Follow the
(private) money.
Even in a struggling
economy, the clean energy industry drew a
record $7.8 billion in venture capital
worldwide in 2010, a 28 percent increase
compared to 2009. Seventy percent of that world
total was invested right here in North America.
Solar alone received more than 30 percent
of U.S. clean tech venture capital in the first
quarter of 2011, indicating a maturing industry
that is expected to continue
growing.
5. Existing
policies will make solar energy affordable for
millions Americans by 2015.
As Emperor Hadrian of
Rome said, "Brick by brick, my citizens, brick by
brick." In seven years, the solar industry has
come a long way very quickly. Forty-three
states have adopted a net-metering
policy, which simply means that utilities
don't have to replace their antiquated software
and hardware to accommodate homes and businesses
that produce extra power they loan to the grid
during peak times of the day. Consumers (homes and
businesses) make money for every bit of excess
solar production that they don't use themselves.
Instead, their utility buys it at the full retail
rate. The small business owner, school, or family
gets to pocket the difference.
4. A truly
competitive free market favors solar over the oil
and coal welfare queens.
Solar and other
renewables will succeed, despite a national energy
playing field tilted towards the oil, gas, and
coal industries, which continue to benefit from 70
years of embedded incentives, subsidies, and
deductions worth $20 billion a
year. In other words, we are paying these
guys twice -- once at the pump and electric meter
and again when we pay our taxes. The single
biggest energy subsidy, worth some $2.2 billion
per year, goes to the oil industry -- and doesn't
even support domestic production.
Don't blame
roustabouts, roughnecks, and drillers. It's not
their fault. But if you ask a senior oil and gas
company executive, CFO, or Director if they're
willing to give up these incentives and compete on
a level playing field in a truly competitive, open
market, what do you think they would they say? How
about we find out? On the other hand, the solar
industry has already declared that they will allow
their 30 percent tax credit to expire in 2016 --
pretty generous, huh?
3. Our
military loves it.
Our
soldiers and sailors already
know. The Department of Defense's clean
energy investments
increased 300 percent between 2006 and
2009, from $400 million to $1.2 billion, and they
are projected to eclipse $10 billion annually by
2030. Why? Because sun and wind
-- not gas stations -- can be found deep in the
Afghani mountains, in the Iraqi desert, and on the
high seas. When combined with brilliant
new battery technologies that store
energy when the wind is not blowing and the sun is
not shining, our military has the energy and fuel
it needs wherever it goes -- rather than waiting
for huge, vulnerable tanker convoys.
2 . Solar in
a box.
That's right, folks.
We love solar because homes and businesses will
soon be winning on price and quality through
simple, affordable "solar-in-a-box" deliveries
right to your home. These mass produced, "air
conditioner/satellite dish/water heater"
installations could be producing the equivalent of
one nuclear power plant to the grid per
year.
1. Solar will
win because we love our nuclear power plant: the
one, the only, the original...93 million miles
away.
These are just ten
reasons why renewable energy will win -- and why
historians and economists will record Solyndra's
failure as merely a footnote in the story of our
transformation from dirty, often imported, fossil
fuel energy to cleaner, homegrown renewable
energy.
*** This article
is a joint effort of the solar industry supergroup
of:
Doug
Payne--Co-Founder / Executive
Director
SolarTech Donnie
Fowler--CEO, Dogpatch Strategies
Danny
Kennedy--Founder / President,Sungevity
Ned Harvey--COO,
Rocky Mountain Institute SolarTech Board member
Tom
McCalmont--CEO McCalmont Engineering,
Co-Founder/Board Chair SolarTech
Jigar
Shah--Founder SunEdison, CEO Carbon War
Room
Originally published
on Greentechmedia.com
RELATED
ARTICLE
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38616/?nlid=nlenrg&nld=2011-09-26
|
5)
Cancer Craves Killer Free Radicals
|
Linda Geddes , New
Scientist 2830. September 15,
2011
Ed. Note:
It is interesting that antioxidants to fight free
radicals is becoming more important. IRI has
discovered "electronic antioxidants" are even more
effective than pills www.BioenergyDevice.org
FOR 80 years we have misunderstood the
feeding habits of cancer. It's a controversial
suggestion that, if correct, could open up a host
of alternative ways to fight the killer disease,
and may even mean that in some circumstances
chemotherapy drugs promote tumour growth rather
than inhibit it.
In the 1930s, Otto Warburg suggested that
cancer cells produce the bulk of their energy by
breaking down glucose in the absence of oxygen, a
process called glycolysis. The Warburg effect, as it
is called, is now widely accepted in cancer
research. It is also incorrect, according to
Michael Lisanti at the Kimmel Cancer Center in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Lisanti thinks that when a cell turns
cancerous it begins to spew out hydrogen peroxide.
The free radicals this generates cause oxidative
damage that prompts support cells in the
connective tissue around the cancer cells to begin
digesting themselves (see diagram). Once
these support cells, called fibroblasts, have
consumed the mitochondria that normally provide
their energy, they switch to glycolysis. The
cancer cells then feed off the nutrients
glycolysis generates.
"It's the Warburg effect, but in the wrong
place," says Lisanti, who presented the idea
earlier this month at the Strategies for Engineered
Negligible Senescence meeting in Cambridge,
UK. "Cancer cells can feed off normal cells as a
parasite." In fact, he says, cells infected with
malaria behave in much the same way. "The malaria
parasite enters cells, induces oxidative stress,
and gets free food" by feeding off the structures
inside host cells that self-digest as a result of
the stress.
"The importance of the micro-environment is
something that has been gaining recognition over
the last few years," says Nic Jones of the
Paterson Institute in Manchester, and chief
scientist for Cancer Research UK. "This adds a
very important and exciting twist, where the
communication between the cancer cell and the
fibroblast fuels the development of the
tumour."
This form of "metabolic coupling" also
mirrors the way in which the epithelial cells that
make up the skin and the surface of the body's
organs produce hydrogen peroxide during wound healing. In
doing so they rally immune cells to repair the
damage - but in cancer the signal is never turned
off. "Cancer is a wound that doesn't heal, because
it keeps on producing hydrogen peroxide," says
Lisanti.
He has experimental data to support his
radical idea. When his team cultured breast cancer
cells alongside fibroblasts for five days, they
spotted the cancer cells releasing hydrogen
peroxide on day two. By day five, most free
radicals generated by the hydrogen peroxide were
found inside the fibroblasts (Cell
Cycle, DOI:
10.4161/cc.9.16.12553). The team also found a
reduction in mitochondrial activity in
fibroblasts, consistent with the cells
self-destructing. There was also an increase in
glucose uptake by the fibroblasts - a sign of
glycolysis (Cell
Cycle, DOI:
10.4161/cc.10.15.16585).
Lisanti is now gathering evidence to find
out whether his ideas can be applied to many
cancers or just a few. He has discovered a
"marker" to identify patients in whom the
metabolic coupling is occurring: as the
fibroblasts are destroyed they stop producing a
protein called caveolin-1. Lisanti has recorded a
drop in caveolin-1 levels in 40 to 50 per cent of
patients with breast cancer, and loss of the
protein correlates with early tumour recurrence,
metastasis, and resistance to the drug, tamoxifen
(Breast Cancer
Research, DOI:
10.1186/bcr2892). He also has evidence for
caveolin-1 loss in prostate cancer. Those results
suggest that new cancer therapies based around
Lisanti's ideas might be possible (see "The cells that die
so cancer can live").
Lisanti believes the reason Warburg got it
wrong is because he looked at cancer cells in
isolation, rather than in co-culture with
fibroblasts.
"The provocative use of the term 'reverse
Warburg' is certainly catchy," says Chi Van Dang of Johns
Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland - but it
ignores some important observations. For example,
many previous studies have found increased
glycolysis in cancer cells.
Lisanti's model also runs into problems
when taking the long view. "If these [fibroblasts]
are sacrificing themselves so that the cancer can
eat, sooner or later they are going to be
completely depleted. And that doesn't happen,"
says Ian Hart of Barts
Cancer Institute in London, UK. It is possible
that tumours recruit stem cells from the bone
marrow to replace the fibroblasts, but Hart says
more evidence is needed to confirm
this.
However, if Lisanti is correct, his ideas
could also explain why people become more
susceptible to cancer as they age. More than 100
years ago, Steven Paget proposed that cancer cells
are seeds that need the correct micro-environment
in which to grow. "What we're now saying is that
the hydrogen peroxide is the fertiliser," says
Lisanti. "As you age, your body produces more
hydrogen peroxide and free radicals and becomes a
fertile ground for cancer."
The cells that die so cancer can
live
For decades, cancer therapies have focused
on destroying cancer cells and ignored the healthy
cells tumours also contain. The discovery that
cancer cells form a parasitic relationship with
the "nest" of fibroblasts or support tissue that
surrounds the tumour may therefore open up other
opportunities for treating the disease.
"So far, all mainstream cancer therapies
are aimed at [removing] these transformed cells,"
says Ian Hart of Barts Cancer Institute in London,
UK. "Rather than killing every last tumour cell,
let's modify the [fibroblasts]."
In his model, Michael Lisanti at the
Kimmel Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
proposes that cancer cells use hydrogen peroxide
to strike up their metabolic relationship with the
fibroblasts. The chemical generates free radicals
in the fibroblasts, kick-starting a self-digestion
process which frees up nutrients to fuel cancer
growth. His team found that treating cancer cells
with catalase, an enzyme that destroys hydrogen
peroxide, triggered a five0fold increase in cancer
cell death, possibly by cutting off the cells'
fuel supply.
This raises the prospect of treating
cancer with antioxidants, which
mop up free radicals. However, although some
studies hint that antioxidants may be beneficial,
particularly for cancer prevention, the results
have often been disappointing, says
Hart.
Killer free radicals
Lisanti thinks that's because most
chemotherapies work by generating lethal doses of
free radicals to kill the cancer cells, which
would cancel out the effects of any antioxidant
treatments. He believes we need trials of
antioxidants alone, rather than in combination
with chemotherapy.
If he is correct it is also possible that
in some situations, chemotherapy might help cancer spread by
making more fuel available to the cancer
cells.
"Conventional chemotherapy saved my father
from colon cancer, but when it does not work, you
get recurrence and metastasis," says Lisanti.
"There is a lot of luck involved here, ensuring
that you got just the right dose."
Hart believes a more promising approach
might be to target specific molecules that enable
cross-talk between cancer cells and
fibroblasts.
One possibility is using drugs that block
"autophagy", the process by which the fibroblasts
self-digest and release nutrients that then fuel
cancer growth. The malaria drug, chloroquine,
works in this way, so could also be tested against
cancer, says Lisanti.
Drugs that inhibit the ability of
mitochondria to burn lactate and other products of
glycolysis may also serve to cut off the tumour's
food supply. One such drug is metformin, widely
prescribed to treat diabetes. Indeed, several
recent studies have suggested that people taking
metformin have a reduced risk of developing cancer
(Gastroenterology,
DOI:
10.1053/j.gastro.2009.04.013).
For similar stories, visit the Cancer Topic
Guide.
back to
table of contents
|
6)
Recharging the Battery in 10
Minutes! |
David Zax 10/05/2011,
Technology Review.
A new technology could take a
lot of the sting out of waiting to recharge your
smart phone.
NTT Docomo is
developing a smart phone battery that can fully
recharge in just 10 minutes. The major Japanese
carrier (it has some 58 million Japanese
customers) was showing off the device recently at
CEATEC, an
electronics exhibition in Japan, where a few reporters spotted
it.
Details
on the device, which is still in prototype, were
scarce, but we have enough to get the general
picture. Currently the battery takes the form of
an external sleeve--not altogether unlike a Mophie "juice
pack"--and only works for the time being with
an Android phone, NEC's Medias (which, while
currently Japanese-specific, is supposedly coming to the US,
someday).
How
does NTT Docomo recharge the battery so quickly?
Simply by cramming in more energy, faster. While a
standard battery pulls something like 0.55 amps,
NTT Docomo's device pulls something like 5.85.
Everyone
wants a faster-charging battery, of course, but
NTT Docomo's presentation raised as many questions
as it answered. How does it cram so much energy
into a battery so quickly without the battery
growing terribly hot? And would the high-speed
charging imply a shorter overall battery lifespan?
(I've sent requests for comment to NTT Docomo,
which hasn't yet responded.) And don't even ask
for details on pricing, let alone release
date--"as soon as possible," was the only info NTT
Docomo would give Engadget.
The
question NTT Docomo seeks to answer--how do we get
a faster-charging battery?--is more frequently asked of
electric vehicles than of smart phones, since
many analysts are convinced that EVs can only make
inroads in markets once recharge times are
comparable to refueling times. Quickening EV
battery charges seems more crucial to me than
speeding up smart phone charges--personally, my
more typical problem is being caught without any
outlet nearby at all when my iPhone's battery
kicks it. Once I do find an outlet, I'm rarely
bothered by the charging time--if there's an
urgent smart-phone-necessitating matter at hand, I
can typically achieve it while plugged in. Still,
for folks who only have a short amount of time to
dock before having to dash to the next location,
such a battery would undoubtedly be a
blessing.
While
waiting for NTT Docomo to come to rescue, if
you're desperate for extended battery life--and
like to disguise your gadgets as breath mints--try
out one of my favorite accessories, Adafruit
Industries' "Minty Boost." Twenty
bucks buys you a battery pack that poses as an
Altoids can; plug it in via USB to help your phone
go the extra mile.
back to table of
contents |
About Integrity
Research Institute
Future
Energy eNews is
provided as a public service from Integrity Research
Institute, a
Non-Profit dedicated to educating the public
on eco-friendly emerging energy technologies.
FREE copy
of the 30 minute DVD "Progress in Future Energy"
is available by sending an email with "Free DVD" in subject
and mailing address in
body.
Your
generous support is welcome by making a tax
deductible donation on our
secure website | | | |
Save 10% |
On
all purchases from IRI by becoming a
member and
a free gift when you join and you save 10% on all
conference and workshop fees as well. You
will receive a quarterly mailing with the latest
information on eco-friendly emerging energy
technologies. All 2011 IRI members will receive free
copies of Energy magazines and the latest emerging
energy technologies reports. |
| | | |