MIT's Bokode

I just ran across this research and watched their demonstration video for this technology, and I have to say, this is an amazing use of an understood and somewhat scientifically unnoticed physical phenomena in a completely new way. This is the kind of novelty that makes research such a pleasure to be a part of. 

Basically, their approach is to utilize the Bokeh effect, which distorts out of focus light, to encode visual information that can only be observed through an out of focus camera/sensor (that is, one whose focal point is infinity rather than the "object" being sensed). Their direct application is to use this to reduce the size of fidicuals created for computer vision/augmented reality systems, as well as increasing the robustness of the angle calculations and the range detection of these systems.

That might not have made much sense, but their demonstration does an excellent job describing their work.

To read more about their work, check out their research website:

• Bokode: Imperceptible Visual Tags for Camera Based Interaction from a Distance

Magnetic Resonance for Power Transmission

I also ran across this TED talk given by Eric Giler, CEO of WiTricity, which capitalizes on the work of some other MIT researchers (except in the Physics department, this time!) Over the past few years,  I've had a number of non-ECE's ask me about the possibility of wireless power transmission. For the most part, I've been a nay-sayer of the technology. 

However, the demonstration given at this talk and the approach that they have implemented has me starting to see the "light" in this work. My main concern with wireless transmission has been my assumption that transmission would be via some EM frequency band, which conjured visions of burning holes in the atmosphere and highly dangerous and inefficient broadcast systems.

But this system relies on magnetic resonance versus some EM broadcast, which is a really interesting idea. Basically, they're pulling the two coils of a transformer apart, separating them by meters currently, but hopefully miles in the future. Giler does a better job explaining their technology than I do, though, so I'll let you watch the video and see for yourselves.

I still had a couple of engineering questions after watching this:

1. How efficient is the power transfer (for the transmitter)?
2. How focused is power transmission (how much can we expect to lose into the air? Does it even work like that?)
3. How can these systems be made larger/smaller?
4. How much additional tech is needed to separate a transmitter and receiver by a "real" distance?

I suppose I'm just really looking for equations, maybe I should read the some of the supporting papers :)

So what do you all think? Have you come across any other interesting and novel pieces of research recently?

This recording is two piano pieces played by an elderly lady that has been coming to the Trinity Reunions for many years. Both she and her husband have a very hard time getting around these days, but they travel a long way to come every year. She always moves people when she gets behind the piano, playing from memory and a style that has passed away from general audiences. 

I also want to let everyone know that these Music For Fun posts are available as a podcast, too. You can subscribe to the podcast by pointing your downloader (iTunes or otherwise) to the RSS for this blog, which can also be found on the sidebar. 

Anyway, we had a productive practice session last night that I wanted to share. Its all a little rough, but enjoyable nonetheless. Here is the lineup:

• Me (Eric Tramel): Clarinet, Vocals
• Josiah: Guitar, Vocals
• Chris: Djembe, Vocals, and some Clarinet twiddling during warmup

These two selections, one I'm posing now and another I'm posting immediately after this, are our arrangement of the song Simon&Garfunkel popularized and you all know by heart: Scarborough Fair. After this is an improvisational jazz piece that is yet unnamed which we threw together. I hope you enjoy!

Secondly, I wanted to let you all know that you now have a new URL to point your browsers and feedreaders too:

• http://espacevide.net

I've been wanting to register a domain name for some years, but never really got around to it. The new URL will direct you straight to here, but without having to fiddle with the squarespace.com extension. Enjoy!

• Lecture 1: Law of Gravitation -- An Example of Physical Law
• Lecture 2: The Relation of Mathematics and Physics
• Lecture 3: The Great Conservation Principles
• Lecture 4: Symmetry in Physical Law
• Lecture 5: The Distinction of Past and Future
• Lecture 6: Probability and Uncertainty -- The Quantum Mechanical View of Nature
• Lecture 7: Seeking New Laws

Now, I don't want to give a biography of Richard Feynman, there are many books on that and his work in theoretical physics. But I do want to say how useful his insight was to physics, and even to researchers in other fields, today. I've watched the first few lectures, already, and they have really encouraged me to take a step back and look at some of the problems that I'm facing holistically, and try to get a handle of the bigger picture of what is going on.

It is very easy to get bogged down in one paper or one specific nuance of an area and really lose a grasp on what it means in the larger scheme of the field, i.e. not being able to see the forest for the trees, or the breakthrough for the potential articles, rather. Many times, we must, instead of picking a "side" and sticking to it, juggle between a few opposing ideas for how to approach a problem. Many times it is because we just don't have the proof as to which one is the more "correct" approach. We must always remember that if we care about pursuing truth at all, then we have to lose the desire to compete one approach against another.

I recently got into this problem with my own work. Without realizing it, in my own mind I had begun championing a certain method, even though it hadn't exactly produced on its claims. There were some advances that existed in an “opposing” method, and I found myself rejecting the insight of the other method because somehow I had to make this one I was working on better on its own. Part of the resulting solution was a fusion of the two, something that I only came to after I resolved the fact in my head that these two methods weren't competing for some fanciful gold medal, but the most accurate way of looking at the situation drew from both insights.

Beyond explaining some fundamentals of Physics, this is the sort of thinking that I see Dr. Feynman promoting within this lecture series. I would encourage you all to take some time of the next couple of weeks and just start watching these lectures. I learned a lot about Physics and the nature of research, and I'm sure you will, as well!

• Rejecta Mathematica

Personally, I think this particular journal is an good idea, albeit with a few caveats. Not only is it disseminating information that might otherwise have been forever, but it is also, in a way, striking at some of the deterimental behaviors of the "establishment".

It is always a presumptuous position, by nature, for a single editor or group of editors to decide the fate of a piece of academic work. On the one hand, there are genuinely bad papers, research that proves no point and goes nowhere (the kind of papers that seem to get published all too often these days). On the other hand, there are papers whose topics are either too esoteric, too new, or whose results are too baffling or incongruent with the community’s current leaning to survive the editorial process, no matter how true or ultimately useful they may prove to be. This is the fate of every human decision, that hindsight is always more clear than foresight.

I see two potential reactions to this journal and potentially subsequent journals in the same "Rejecta" vein. First, the more positive one: that reviewers and editors begin to take a serious look at the papers they review and actually evaluate the content and results with an open mind eager to see scientific progress rather than maintain a personal or community ideal of status quo. In every field, sometimes past assumptions need to be questioned, and of course, some questions are more meaningful than others. And if this journal and others like it, promote the selection committees of other journals to rethink their standard business practices, then all the better for everyone.

I find the other potential reaction much more negative and detrimental to the scientific community than the current editorial practices, however. And time will tell whether the positive reaction outweighs the negative. Every community and every field has big egos, it is a part of human nature that will endure so long as we remain. And we all know that those egos are not necessarily in line with the owner's actual personal achievement or merit. Simply, It is easy for a researcher to become cocksure of their way of viewing a problem and the greatness of their own work. Sometimes a rejection is a much needed wake up call, albeit a jarring and undesirable one, to change perspective or shift focus. The "Rejecta" philosophy has the possibility to breed larger egos and greater contempt for review boards, promoting detrimental behavior and standards. I'd hate to see what happens to papers that get rejected from the Rejecta Mathematica...the Rejecta Rejecta Mathematica, perhaps?

To sum it all up, while a review board needs to have an open mind as it makes its decisions, along with the actual time to make a thorough assessment of the work, there is one quality that every researcher and editor must have if we wish to see scientific progress in any of our fields: humility.

So, if you are are only interested in my work, please refer to the 'Articles' section at on the navigation bar, and enjoy :)