Text 2. The century-old artifact that defines the kilogram, the fundamental unit of mass, is to be replaced by a more accurate standards based on an invariant property of nature
Weighty Matters. By: Robinson, Ian, Scientific American, 00368733, Dec2006, Vol. 295, Issue 6
In an age when technologies typically grow obsolete in a few years, it is ironic that almost all the world's measurements of mass (and related phenomena such as energy) depend on a 117-year-old object stored in the vaults of a small laboratory outside Paris, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. According to the International System of Units (SI), often referred to as the metric system, the kilogram is equal to the mass of this “international prototype of the kilogram” (or IPK) – a precision-fabricated cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy that stands 39 millimeters high and is the same in diameter.
The SI is administered by the General Conference on Weights and Measures and the International Committee for Weights and Measures. During the past several decades the conference has redefined other base SI units (those set by convention and from which all other quantities are derived) to vastly improve their accuracy and thus keep them in step with the advancement of scientific and technological understanding. The standards for the meter and the second, for example, are now founded on natural phenomena. The meter is tied to the speed of light, whereas the second has been related to the frequency of microwaves emitted by a specific element during a certain transition between energy states.
Today the kilogram is the last remaining SI unit still based on a unique man-made object. Reliance on such an artifact poses problems for science as measurement techniques become more precise. Metrologists (specialists in measurement) are therefore striving to define mass using techniques depending only on unchanging properties of nature. Two approaches seem most promising – one based on the concept underlying the Avogadro constant, the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon 12, and the other involving Planck's constant, the fundamental value physicists use, for example, to calculate a photon's energy from its frequency. Because scientists measure constants in SI units (including the kilogram), any drift in the IPK's real mass will give rise to a drift in the value of a measured constant – a seeming paradox for what is commonly considered an immutable phenomenon. In the process of more accurately redefining the kilogram independently of the IPK, however, scientists will choose a best estimate of the constant's value and thus “fix” it.
Check your comprehension
~ What natural phenomena are the standards for the meter and the second based on?
~ Which SI units are based on unique man-made objects?
Web of Measurements
THE PRESENT DEFINITION of the kilogram requires that all SI mass measurements carried out in the world be related to the mass of the IPK. (“Mass” is commonly equated with “weight,” but technically the “mass” of an object refers to the amount of matter in it, whereas its “weight” is caused by the gravitational attraction between the object and the earth.) To forge this link, metrologists remove the IPK from its sanctuary every 40 years or so to calibrate the copies of the IPK that are sent to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures by the 51 national signatories of the “Meter Convention” – the treaty that governs the SI. Once equilibrated, these copies are used to calibrate all other mass standards of the member states in a long, unbroken sequence that propagates down to the weighing scales and other instruments employed in laboratories and factories around the globe.
It makes economic sense to have a stable, unchanging standard of mass, but evidence indicates that the mass of the IPK drifts with time. By observing relative changes of the other mass standards fabricated at the same time as the IPK and by analyzing old and new measurements of mass-related fundamental constants (which are thought not to change significantly over time), scientists have shown that the mass of the IPK could have grown or shrunk by 50 micrograms or more over the past 100 years. The drift could have been caused by such things as accumulated contamination from the air or loss from abrasion. Because the base units of the SI underpin worldwide science and industry (via the national standard calibration chains), ensuring that they do not vary with time is critical.
Based on Nature
THE SAME INCONSTANCY that plagues the definition of the kilogram previously affected the second and the meter. Scientists once defined the second in terms of the rate of rotation of the earth. In 1967, however, they redefined it to be “the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.” Metrologists introduced this change because the rotation rate of our planet is not constant, whereas the wavelength of the radiation emitted by cesium 133 during a specific transition – that is, the ticking of an atomic clock – does not alter with time and the measurement can be reproduced anywhere in the world.
Although the definition of the second is not based on an artifact, it suffers from its dependence on a particular transition of a specific atom, which unfortunately turns out to be more sensitive to electromagnetic fields than is desirable. The definition may need to be changed in the future to accommodate the even more precise optical clocks that physicists are now developing.
The definition of the meter, on the other hand, is firmer. The SI originally based the meter on an artifact – the distance between two lines inscribed on a highly stable platinum-iridium bar. In 1983 the meter definition was switched to “the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.” This definition should also be resilient because it fixed the value of a key physical constant, the speed of light, at exactly 299,792,458 meters a second. Thus, progress in the control and measurement of the frequency of electromagnetic radiation (the number of sinusoidal vibrations a second) will merely improve the accuracy with which scientists can measure the meter – with no change in the unit’s definition required.
Check your comprehension
~ What is the difference between the notions of “mass” and “weight”?
~ What could cause drift of the mass of the IPK with time?
~ What influences a particular transition of a specific atom (the cesium 133 atom)?
Atomic Accounting
TO REDEFINE THE KILOGRAM in terms of a physical constant, metrologists measure the value of the constant as accurately as possible using the existing definition of the mass unit. This number can then be incorporated into the new definition to ensure a seamless transition between the old and new ones. Researchers can then employ the measurement method, in conjunction with the now fixed value of the constant, to determine mass according to the new definition.
One promising approach relates the kilogram to the mass of an atom by quantifying the kilogram as the mass of a certain number of atoms of a selected element. This route would fix the value of the Avogadro constant, which is defined as the number of atoms of a specific element in a mole – about 6.02 x 1023 atoms. (A mole is the amount of an element that has a mass in grams equal to the element's atomic weight; a mole of carbon 12 has a mass of 12 grams.) The problem with this strategy, however, is that it requires one to count enough atoms to make a weighable quantity of material for comparison with a kilogram mass. Because several physical effects limit the accuracy and resolution of balances to around 100 nanograms, a minimum of five grams of material would be needed to approach the target accuracy of approximately two parts in 100 million. Sadly, physicists cannot count out atoms rapidly enough; even if a counter capable of tallying individual atoms at a rate of one trillion a second could be produced, the device would take about seven millennia to tally enough carbon 12 atoms.
Scientists could, however, determine the number of atoms in a perfect crystal by dividing the volume of the crystal by the volume occupied by a single atom. If the crystal is then weighed and the mass of the atomic species that makes up the crystal is known relative to that of carbon 12, they can calculate the Avogadro constant from these data, thereby providing a path to the redefinition of the kilogram.
This more practical method, which is now being pursued, first measures the volume occupied by an atom by determining the regular spacing of atoms within a nearly perfect crystal (with a known number of atoms per unit cell) of known weight, close to one kilogram. Then, by determining the dimensions of the crystal, scientists can find the total volume, from which the mass of an atom in the sample can be calculated. The Avogadro constant, which is calculated from the ratio of the molar mass of an element to the mass of an atom, could then be derived from the results.
Although this plan is simple in concept, researchers have difficulty implementing it because of the extreme degree of precision it entails. Indeed, the high complexity and cost of this project mean that no one facility can hope to carry it out alone. Consequently, the load is being shared among a consortium of laboratories in Australia, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. – the International Avogadro Coordination. For this technique to work, the crystal must have an almost perfect structure; it must contain few voids or impurities. Project scientists chose to make the crystal out of silicon because the semiconductor industry has studied it closely and has developed procedures to grow large, practically perfect, single crystals. Once researchers had completed all the measurements of the crystal, they could relate the results to the carbon 12 definition of the mole using the extremely precise relative atomic masses of silicon and carbon obtained from mass spectrometers.
Check your comprehension
~ How is the Avogadro constant defined?
~ Why was it necessary to establish the International Avogadro Coordination?
To begin the procedure, they cut several samples from a raw crystal. One was polished to form a one-kilogram sphere to measure. Planners selected a rounded shape because a ball has no corners that could get knocked off and because craftsmen already knew how to hone silicon into a close approximation of a perfect sphere. Australian technicians fabricated a sphere with a diameter of 93.6 millimeters that departs from the ideal by no more than 50 nanometers. If each silicon atom were the size of a large marble1 (about 20 millimeters across), the sphere would equal the approximate size of the earth, and the distance between the highest and lowest “altitude” on its surface would be about seven meters (about 350 marbles in length).
To find the volume of the silicon sphere, researchers had to determine its average diameter to within the diameter of an atom. They first carefully reflected laser light of a known frequency off opposite sides of the sphere in a vacuum and gauged the difference in light paths (in wavelengths) with the sphere present and absent. This step enabled them to find its diameter in meters, as the wavelength of the light is equal to the (fixed) speed of light divided by the known laser frequency. Scientists then calculated the volume from the diameter, together with a few small corrections related to the slightly imperfect shape of the crystal and the optical properties of the surfaces.
Researchers obtained the volume occupied by one atom using combined x-ray and optical interferometry to find the distance between atomic planes in a sample cut from the raw crystal. Technicians machined several slots into the sample so that one part of the crystal could be moved reproducibly with respect to the rest of it while maintaining the angular alignment of the atomic planes. The sample was placed in a vacuum and illuminated with x-rays having a wavelength small enough to reflect easily from the atomic planes in the crystal. They then used the strength of this reflection, which varies according to the relative position of the atomic planes in the moving and stationary parts of the crystal, to count the number of plane spacings the repositioned part of the crystal had shifted. Scientists simultaneously measured the translation distance using a laser interferometer that used light of a known frequency. This technique determined the interplane spacing in meters. Using knowledge of the crystal structure, they then found the volume occupied by an atom.
Metrologists ascertained the mass of the crystal sphere by “substitution weighing” using a conventional balance and a “tare mass,” whose mass must be stable but need not be known. They placed the sphere on a balance and compared it against a separate one-kilogram tare mass sitting on the other arm of the balance. They then substituted the sphere with a mass known in terms of the IPK mass standard and repeated the weighing process. Because the substitution was carried out so that the balance remained unaffected by the switch, the difference in the two readings gave the difference in mass between the sphere and the mass standard, which revealed the mass of the sphere. This method eliminated error arising from factors such as unequal lengths of the balance arms.
The researchers also analyzed other samples of the silicon material to establish the relative abundance of the various isotopes to account for their differing contributions to the molar mass of the sphere. To accomplish this task, they had to determine the proportion of the three isotopes – silicon 28, silicon 29 and silicon 30 – present in the natural silicon crystal. For this step they used mass spectroscopy, which separates charged isotopes according to their different charge-to-mass ratios.
The IAC has nearly completed work on the natural silicon spheres, having thus determined the number of atoms in a one-kilogram sphere with an accuracy close to three parts in 10 million. But this accuracy is not good enough. To achieve higher levels, the group is producing a sphere that consists almost entirely of a single isotope, silicon 28. Making such an object will cost between $1.25 million and $2.5 million. Gas centrifuges in Russia that were once employed to refine weapons-grade uranium are purifying the material for the new sphere. The consortium is aiming for an uncertainty in the final result of about two parts in 100 million.
________________
1A marble is a small ball made of hard material, e.g. glass used in some children’s games.
Check your comprehension
~ How did scientists define the volume of the silicon sphere?
~ How “substitution weighing” was conducting?
~ How will the accuracy of determining the number of atoms in a one-kilogram sphere increase after gas centrifuges in Russia have been used?
Weighing Equivalent Energy
THE OTHER PATH to redefining the kilogram is based on the concept of measuring mass in terms of its equivalent energy, a principle that Albert Einstein explained using his famous equation E = mc², which relates mass and energy at the most fundamental level. Investigators would thus define mass in terms of the amount of energy into which it could (potentially) be converted. As is true of counting atoms, though, the techniques involved have considerable disadvantages. For example, large releases of atomic energy result when mass is converted into energy directly. Luckily, easier methods that compare conventional electrical and mechanical energy or power are feasible, provided that researchers can overcome problems associated with energy losses.
To get a sense of the obstacles to this type of approach, imagine using an electric motor to lift an object having mass m (against gravity). In an ideal situation, all the energy supplied to the motor would go into increasing the potential energy of the object. The mass could then be calculated from the electrical energy Esupplied to the motor, the vertical distance dtraveled by the object and the acceleration from gravity g, using the formula m = E/gd. (The acceleration caused by gravity would have to be gauged very accurately using a precision gravimeter.) In the real world, however, energy losses in the motor and other parts of the system would make an accurate measurement almost impossible. Although researchers have attempted similar experiments using superconducting levitated masses, accuracies better than one part in a million are hard to achieve.
About 30 years ago Bryan Kibble of the U.K.’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL) devised the method now known as the watt balance, which avoids energy-loss problems by measuring “virtual power”. In other words, by designing a sufficiently clever, two-part procedure, scientists can sidestep the inevitable losses. The method links the standard kilogram, the meter and the second to highly accurate practical realizations of electrical resistance (in ohms) and electric potential (in volts) derived from two quantum-mechanical phenomena – the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect, both of which incorporate Planck's constant. In the process, the technique allows the value of the Planck constant to be measured very accurately.
In the watt balance, an object having mass m is weighed by suspending it from the arm of a conventional balance to which a coil of wire is also attached with a total length L hanging in a strong magnetic field B. A current i is passed through the coil to generate a force BLi, which is adjusted to exactly balance the weight mg of the mass (that is, mg = BLi). The mass and current are then removed, and in a second part of the experiment, the coil is moved through the field at a measured velocity u while the induced voltage V(V = BLu) is monitored. This second phase finds the value of the BL product, which is difficult to determine in any other way. If the magnet and coil are sufficiently stable, so that the BL product is the same in both parts of the procedure, the results can be combined to give mgu = Vi, which states the equality of mechanical power (force times velocity, mg times u) to electrical power (voltage V times current i). By separating the measurements of V and i as well as mg and u, the technique yields a result that is not sensitive to the loss of real power in either part of the experiment (that is, heat dissipated in the coil during weighing or frictional losses during moving), so the apparatus can be said to have measured “virtual” power.
Scientists determine the electric current in the weighing phase of the watt balance procedure by passing it through a resistor. This resistance is specially gauged using the quantum Hall effect, which permits it to be described in quantum-mechanical terms. The voltage across the resistor and the coil voltage are measured in terms of quantum mechanics using the Josephson effect. This last result allows researchers to express the electrical power in terms of Planck's constant and frequency. Because the other terms in the equation depend only on time and length, researchers can then quantify the mass m in terms of Planck's constant plus the meter and the second, both of which are based on constants of nature.
The method's principle is relatively straightforward, but to achieve the desired accuracy of approximately one part in 100 million, scientists must determine the major contributing quantities with an accuracy at the limit of many of the best available techniques. Besides measuring gvery accurately, they have to perform all the procedures in a vacuum to eliminate the effects of both air buoyancy during the weighing process and the air's refractive index during the velocity measurement (which uses a laser interferometer). Researchers must also precisely align the force from the coil to the vertical direction and perform angular and linear alignments of the apparatus to a precision of at least 50 microradians and 10 microns, respectively. Finally, the magnetic field has to be predictable between the two modes of the watt balance, a condition requiring that the temperature of the permanent magnet vary slowly and smoothly.
Three laboratories have developed watt balances: the Swiss Federal Office of Metrology, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S., and the NPL. Meanwhile the staff of the French National Bureau of Metrology is assembling prototype equipment, and that of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures is designing an apparatus. Ultimately these efforts will yield five independent instruments with varying designs, so the extent to which their results agree will indicate how well researchers have identified and eliminated systematic errors in each case. The long-term goal of these groups is to measure Planck's constant to around one part in 100 million, with the possibility of approaching five parts in a billion.
Check your comprehension
~ What are the obstacles to using an electric motor to lift an object having mass min ordertodefine mass in terms of the amount of energy in the real world?
~ Which SI units does the watt balance method link?
~ Is it possible to achieve the desired accuracy with the best available techniques?
~ Why must all the procedures be performed in a vacuum?
~ What will the degree of agreement of results of the three laboratories engaged in developing watt balances method indicate?
Weighty Future
THE LATEST RESULTS from the work on the Avogadro constant and those from the NPL and NIST watt balances differ by more than one part in a million. Researchers must reconcile this discrepancy before a redefinition of the kilogram will be possible.
Redefinition in terms of the Avogadro constant or Planck’s constant will have widespread effects, reducing reported uncertainties associated with those constants. Moreover, if Planck's constant and the elementary electric charge are fixed (by combining, for example, watt balance and calculable capacitor measurements), many other important constants would also be fixed.
The International Committee for Weights and Measures has recommended that national measurement laboratories continue their efforts aimed at measuring the fundamental constants that support the redefinition process. Researchers hope that these steps will lead to new standards not only for the kilogram but the ampere, the kelvin and the mole by 2011.
Once the redefinition is complete, a few nations will build or maintain the equipment necessary for implementing the definition directly. Those that do not will have their standards calibrated using a consensus value for the kilogram derived from the laboratory work. Still, fears of damaging or contaminating a single master reference standard should fall away because comparisons between national standards and a working standard based on the new definition could be performed as needed. The new definition would allow authorities to adjust the world mass scale in tiny steps every so often to keep it free of drift and fully locked to the best – the latest consensus and independently confirmed – value of the SI unit of mass. Such a system would be robust and stable, allowing scientific and technological progress to continue unabated.
Check your comprehension
~ Which other important constants would be fixed after a redefinition of the kilogram?
~ Will fears of damaging or contaminating a single master reference standard remain after a redefinition of the kilogram?
Unit 5
The importance of physics: breakthroughs drive economy, quality of life
By MICHAEL PRAVICA
SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL
The year 2005 has been designated the World Year of Physics to recognize physics as a foundation of not only science, but also society. The designation coincides with the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein's "miraculous year" of 1905, during which he published papers on the theory of relativity, quantum theory and the theory of Brownian motion, ideas that have profoundly influenced all of modern physics. We are deeply indebted to generations of physicists for the world we understand, our security, our livelihoods and our economic prowess.
The fruits resulting from the sacrifices of these intellectual giants are ubiquitous, yet too often taken for granted. Many of our leaders no longer seem to respect or abide by the opinions of scientists, and yet they depend on the technology developed by scientists. They frequently make decisions without understanding nature, the technology we all use, and the planet-wide consequences of abusing technology.
In addition, these leaders are reducing investment in scientific research, as evident in the recent budget reduction for the National Science Foundation, which will ultimately reduce our competitiveness by frustrating our capacity to innovate and develop novel technology that is mostly initiated from scientific research.
Physics endeavors to understand the underlying laws governing our universe. By better understanding those laws, we can better interact with and harness our environment. To gain perspective into how much physics has contributed to our livelihoods, consider the following miracles from physicists: alternating current, hydroelectric power, electric motors, radio, microwave ovens, satellites, radar, modern rocketry, the solution of the DNA structure, nuclear magnetic resonance, magnetic resonance imaging, X-rays, lasers, transistors, light-emitting diodes, oscilloscopes, television, holography, and the World Wide Web (originally developed for high-energy physicists), among many others. Physicists studying fundamental natural principles, such as quantum mechanics, often invented new devices by applying these principles serendipitously or by design.
Examples of this are the transistor (miniature switch/amplifier) and diode (one-way switch), used in electronic watches, calculators, pacemakers, hearing aids, cellular phones, global positioning systems, radios, computers and LEDs. They are fundamental building blocks upon which our entire society is constructed. Applications of the laser (an optical amplifier) include bar code readers, micro/eye surgery, compact disc players and information retrieval and storage, fiber optics (most modern phone lines and medical aids use this), machining, surveying, laser printers, semiconductor fabrication, holography, and perhaps the greatest potential use, fusion.
Nuclear magnetic resonance identifies chemical species in chemistry and biology. Magnetic resonance imaging is an extension of NMR that has been vital for noninvasive glimpses into the body to find tumors, study thinking processes and understand blood flow based upon the precession of protons in a magnetic field.
The insatiable human quest for knowledge and understanding of the natural world leads to scientific theories. From these theories, new technology is created that, in turn, allows more accurate, expanded and novel experimental observations to prove or disprove theories (for example, the telescope). Thus, there is a deep symbiosis between discovery in physics (and the rest of science) and new technology.
We all benefit from the priceless contributions of physics; a small number of them are mentioned here. Economists Edward C. Prescott and Finn E. Kydland won the 2004 Nobel Prize for economics in part for pointing out that new technology drives booms in economies. Contributions from physics generate many trillions of dollars for the world economy and aid our existence immeasurably.
Only science, with physics as its foundation, can solve many of the impending crises facing our society, such as global warming, overpopulation, waning energy and other natural resources, and the poisoning of our planet. Our leaders need to consult scientists in their decision making. There should be more recognition and celebration of the importance of science and scientific research by our business, social and political leaders. The public should seek leaders who are better versed in science.
Scientists need to be more vocal and strive to explain science and its deep relevance to humanity. And students should take more science courses and learn about the physical world we live in.
Now, more than ever, we need to resurrect respect and strong support for science.
Check your comprehension
~ What does physics endeavor to understand?
~ What global problems can physics solve?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-06-Sun-2005/opinion/682710.html
Unit 6
Career of engineer
If you want to have a career in engineering, you have two options from which to choose. You can be an engineeroran engineering technician. Each of these has different educational and licensing requirements, as well as different duties and salaries. See the chart below for a quick look at the differences between these two career choices. Both engineers and engineering technicians can also choose from a variety of specialties which are discussed in the individual career profiles.
Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and mathematics in researching and developing solutions to technical problems. To become an engineer one must earn a bachelor's degree in engineering. Some jobs are available for those who have earned a bachelor's degree in physical science or mathematics. Engineers who offer their services directly to the public must be licensed. Engineers held 1.6 million jobs in 2008. The highest number of these jobs were in civil engineering (278,400), mechanical engineering (238,700), industrial engineering (214,800), electrical engineering (157,800) and electronic engineering, not including computer engineering (143,700).
Educational Requirements for Engineers:
To get an entry-level engineering job, one usually needs a bachelor's degree in engineering. Sometimes a bachelor's degree in physical science or mathematics may suffice, especially in high-demand specialties. Generally engineering students specialize in a particular branch of engineering but may eventually work in a related branch.
How Do Engineers Advance?
As entry level engineers gain experience and knowledge, they may work more independently, making decisions, developing designs, and solving problems. With further experience, engineers may become technical specialists or supervisors over a staff or team of engineers or technicians. Eventually, they may become engineering managers, or may move into other managerial or sales jobs.
Job Outlook for Engineers:
In general, engineering employment is expected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations through 2018, although outlook will vary by branch.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that biomedical, environmental and civil engineering will experience much faster than average growth, while employment in petroleum engineering, industrial engineering and geological and mining engineering will grow at a faster than average rate.
Other branches will grow either as fast as the average or slower than the average for all occupations, or will see a decline in employment.
Engineering Technician
Engineering technicians often assist engineers and scientists, using science, engineering and mathematical principles to solve technical problems in research and development, manufacturing, sales, construction, inspection, and maintenance. The work of engineering technicians is more application oriented and more limited in scope than that of engineers. To become an engineering technician one must generally earn an associate degree in engineering technology. Engineering technicians held 497,300 jobs in 2008. There were 164,000 electrical and electronic engineering technicians, 91,700 civil engineering technicians, 72,600 industrial engineering technicians, 46,100 mechanical engineering technicians, 21,200 environmental engineering technicians, 16,400 electro-mechanical technicians, and 8,700 aerospace engineering and operations technicians.
Educational Requirements for Engineering Technicians:
Those who want to work as engineering technicians should have at least an associate degree in engineering technology, although some employers will hire candidates who don't have formal training. Those who plan to become engineering technicians can expect to take courses in college algebra and trigonometry and basic science. Other coursework depends on specialty. For example, those who want to become electrical engineering technicians will take classes in electrical circuits, microprocessors and digital electronics.
Advancement for Engineering Technicians:
Engineering technicians initially work under the supervision of more experienced technicians, technologists, engineers or scientists. As they gain experience they are given more difficult assignments with limited supervision. Eventually they may become supervisors.
Job Outlook for Engineering Technicians:
Employment of engineering technicians, across all disciplines, is expected to grow more slowly than the average for all occupations through 2018. The outlook, however, will vary by specialty. For example, job growth for environmental engineering technicians is projected to be faster, through 2018, than it will be for other occupations requiring post-secondary training or an associate degree. Civil engineering technicians will also see an increase in employment as it grows faster than the average for all occupations. Employment of electro-mechanical engineering technicians will decline.
Check your comprehension
~ Do engineers usually assist engineer technicians?
~ What are job predictions for engineers and engineer technicians?
http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/p/engineer_tech.htm
http://careerplanning.about.com/od/occupations/a/careers_in_eng.htm
Unit 7
Text 1. Science in Russia
Ever since the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, Russian leaders have been vowing to transform their old-line, industrial society into a modern, knowledge-based economy driven by innovative science and technology. The current Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, has repeated that ambition frequently — not least as a way to overcome Russia’s dependence on oil and gas exports. Unfortunately, that transformation continues to be hobbled by outdated attitudes at the top of Russia’s academic hierarchy.
A small, but telling example came to light last month when the popular online newspaper gazeta.ru published an interview with Yuri Osipov (in Russian), president of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. Pressed by the reporter about the very low citation rate for articles published in Russian-language science journals, Osipov dismissed the relevance of citation indices, questioned the need for Russian scientists to publish in foreign journals and said that any top-level specialist “will also study Russian and read papers in Russian”.
From anyone else, such a response might be dismissed as an off-hand comment, perhaps reflecting a bit of stung national pride. But Osipov is head of the largest and most powerful research organization in Russia, the employer of around 50,000 scientists in more than 400 research institutes, and the publisher of some 150 Russian-language research journals. What he says and thinks has a big effect on Russian science. Moreover, the undercurrent of scientific nationalism in his remarks is widely shared by other senior members of the academic establishment — many of whom are products of Soviet times, when Russian science was pretty much an all-Russian affair.
According to the US National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report, even 20 years later there is a still steady decrease in the number of scientists in Russia.
What is also eye-catching, number of domestic researchers draws level with Europe and the United States. Where as China continues to show very strong grow. China has approximately as many researchers as either the United States or the European Union (EU)!
According to the citation-analysis company Thomson Scientific, Russia is eighteenth among countries ranked by citations in the scientific literature over the past 10 years. That is a result not just of low overall funding but because management of basic science still stands on the concepts of a closed society, with a centralized administration inherited from the days of the Soviet Union. This leads to the absence of international peer review and to little motivation for scientists to produce international-level scientific results — they do not really need them to get funding from national sources. In addition, centralized funding of institutions, rather than of individual scientists, leads to resources being wasted.
Between 2004 and 2008, Thomson Reuters indexed 125,778 papers that listed at least one author address in Russia. Of those papers, the highest percentage appeared in journals categorized in the field of physics, followed by space science. As the right-hand column shows, the citations-per-paper (impact) average for physics papers from Russia during 2004-08 was 14% below the world impact figure for the field (3.57 citations per paper for Russia, versus a world figure of 4.16 cites).
Russian science is already lagging behind that of other nations. According to an analysis published in January by Thomson Reuters, Russia produced just 2.6% of the research papers published between 2004 and 2008 and indexed by the firm — fewer than China (8.4%) and India (2.9%) and only slightly more than the Netherlands (2.5%). Moreover, Russia’s publication output has remained almost flat since 1981, even as the output of nations such as India, Brazil and China was exploding. The situation is so bleak that in October last year, 185 Russian expatriate scientists signed an open letter to Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warning of an imminent collapse of Russian science unless something was done to improve the inadequate funding, strategic planning and teaching of science.
The Russian Academy of Sciences, founded in 1725, is the chief coordinating body for scientific research in Russia through its science councils and commissions. It has sections of physical, technical, and mathematical sciences; chemical, technological, and biological sciences, and earth sciences, and controls a network of nearly 300 research institutes. The Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, founded in 1929, has departments of plant breeding and genetics; arable farming and the use of agricultural chemicals; feed and fodder crops production; plant protection; livestock production; veterinary science; mechanization, electrification, and automation in farming; forestry; the economics and management of agricultural production; land reform and the organization of land use; land reclamation and water resources; and the storage and processing of agricultural products. It controls a network of nearly 100 research institutes. It supervises a number of research institutes, experimental and breeding stations, dendraria and arboreta. The Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, founded in 1944, has departments of preventive medicine, clinical medicine, and medical and biological sciences, and controls a network of nearly 100 research institutes.
The Russian Federation in 2002 had 3,415 scientists and engineers, and 579 technicians engaged in research and development (R and D) per million people. In the same period, R and D expenditures totaled $14,733.916 million, or 1.24% of GDP. Of that amount, the largest portion, 58.4%, came from government sources, while business accounted for 30.8%. Higher education, private nonprofit organizations and foreign sources accounted for 0.3%, 0.1% and 8%, respectively. High technology exports in 2002 totaled $2.897 billion, or 13% of the country's manufactured exports.
Russia has nearly 250 universities and institutes offering courses in basic and applied sciences. In 1987-97, science and engineering students accounted for 50% of university enrollment.
Check your comprehension
~ What are the results of US National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report
~ When was the Russian Academy of Sciences founded?
http://olexandrisayev.com/2010/science-in-russia
http://library.by/portalus/modules/english_russia/referat_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1188910373&archive=&start_from=&ucat=28&
Text 2. Smart Russia
Owen Mathews
«Newsweek», May 18th, 2010
Medvedev’s vision of Russia’s future is about brains, not the power of oil, bombs, or the Kremlin.
When president Dmitry Medvedev speaks about restoring Russia’s greatness he talks about building an “innovation city” in the Moscow suburb of Skolkovo, where the state will leave the nation’s best minds free to pursue the scientific and technological breakthroughs that are the bedrock of a 21st-century “knowledge economy.” Medvedev’s vision is designed to liberate Russia from what he calls a “humiliating” reliance on oil and gas exports, and to revive the greatness of a nation once known for scientific and technological achievement. “The success of the ‘Smart Russia’ movement is a question of life and death for Russia,” says Zhores Alferov, the only Nobel Prize winner still living in Russia, who was chosen by Medvedev last month as overall head of the Skolkovo project. “The idea of Skolkovo is like Noah’s ark – all our ideas of hope and survival are pinned on it.”
Whether Russia reemerges as a great power may well be determined by Medvedev’s campaign to revive its smart side. For all its inefficiencies, the Soviet state was a generous supporter of science and technology, building the world’s first artificial satellite and the capsule that put the first man in space. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, state support for the sciences collapsed, scientists fled for posts overseas, and the state itself evolved into a predator – committed in theory to the free market, but too often in practice to plundering private enterprise for profit. In the generation that separated Yuri Gagarin’s spaceflight from Putin’s election in 2000, Russia’s GDP and industrial production fell by nearly 50 percent, and with them investment in science fell from 6 percent of GDP to just 1.5 percent, where it stagnates today. The brain drain began in the 1970s as educated Soviet Jews – like the parents of young Sergey Brin, who went on to become a co-inventor of Google – headed to the free West. By the turn of the century it had robbed Russia of more than a half million of its most talented people. Putin and Medvedev both believe that the state can solve Russia’s problems – but while Putin sees the bureaucracy as the source of his power, Medvedev sees it as a corrupt obstacle to creating a post-oil economy.
Check your comprehension
~ What does president Dmitry Medvedev want to liberate Russia from? How is he going to pursue his goal?
~ Why did Russia loose more than a half million of its most talented people?
Skolkovo is the centerpiece of Medvedev’s drive to create a new kind of economy. A nondescript Soviet-era suburb 40 kilometers outside Moscow, Skolkovo is already home to Russia’s leading business school, which is (crucially) private but receives some state research money. The new innovation city is inspired by the relationship between Stanford University and Silicon Valley, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Route 128 tech firms outside Boston: a place where academic brains can find the private and government money they need to launch startup companies. The new Skolkovo will be “a real city of the future,” says oil baron Viktor Vekselberg, Russia’s 10th-richest man and Medvedev’s choice to organize the business side of Skolkovo, selecting the best ideas for the state to back as startups. Construction is already underway on a 300-hectare plot that will be protected by walls and gates. If all goes as planned, by 2014 the new city will house 30,000 to 40,000 people. Viktor Ustinov, one of Russia’s top physicists and a former pupil of Alferov’s, says Skolkovo will be a “Russian Silicon Valley” devoted to innovation in communications and biomedicine, as well as in space, nuclear, and information technologies. According to Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin’s chief ideologue, “Only the best people will go there, and they will be carefully protected … The best people will be given the very best conditions.”
Many nations have also tried to build their own Silicon Valleys. But Medvedev, however belatedly, has declared that the project is Russia’s last best hope. His 2008 blueprint for the Russian economy, called “Strategy 2020,” calls for the tech sector to make up 15 percent of exports, or 8 to 10 percent of GDP, by 2020. Currently it’s about 1.1 percent of GDP, and much of that is in military hardware. So Medvedev is pumping billions in state funds into projects including Skolkovo, the world’s biggest nanotechnology-investment fund, and a program designed to lure Russian émigrés and their companies back to the homeland. Medvedev has sent top officials on the road to drum up money for innovation bonds, and earmarked more than $10 billion for tech investment. That lags behind others – China has allocated $26 billion toward tech investment for 2010 alone – but is nonetheless a sign of seriousness.
Skolkovo’s main chance of success is that its businesses will be protected from rapacious state bureaucrats and police. Today the subsidies and special privileges that the Soviet state once lavished on science and business projects have given way to plain theft. In a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of global economic crimes, 71 percent of Russian enterprises reported being the target of such abuses by police or bureaucrats in 2009 (the worst of 33 countries in the study). Medvedev himself has publicly blasted Russia’s culture of state corruption and has attempted to seal off Skolkovo, which will have simplified laws on businesses, a simpler visa regime, tax benefits, and no thieving bureaucrats.
Check your comprehension
~Which factors pare crucial for success of Silicon Valley and the like “smart cities”?
~ What are financial sources for the world’s biggest nanotechnology-investment fund?
~What can causefailure ofSkolkovo’s project?
But the trend lines are running against Smart Russia. In a couple of decades the cream of the Soviet intelligentsia will be dead, leaving behind a rotten education system. Most of Russia’s traditional research institutes long ago lost many of their best people to better-funded universities in the West, and now there’s not a single Russian university in the world’s top 100. Just as the Russian state was plundered by its servants after the fall of communism, so the assets of its academic institutions were sold off, rented out, and systematically stolen by its administrators. In 2009 the country published fewer scholarly papers and journals than India or China, and Russians won only four Nobel Prizes in the last decade, compared with 67 for the U.S. (and only one, Mikhail Gorbachev’s peace prize, in the 1990s). In the World Economic Forum’s rankings of the world’s most competitive nations, Russia has slipped 12 places, to 63rd, since Medvedev became president in 2008, and its information-technology sector has slipped four places in as many years, to a dismal 74th out of 134 countries. Some Russian businessmen, like antivirus-software designer Yevgeny Kaspersky, complain that what talent remains seems disproportionately focused on illegal activity, like the creation of the “Storm” Trojan horse that spawned a worldwide botnet infecting 1.5 million computers last year. “Russia is a nation of super hackers,” says Kaspersky, whose Kaspersky Labs is one of Russia’s few global tech businesses – devoted to blocking hackers.
Check your comprehension
~ What are reasons for and signs of Russian science lagging behind many other countries?
In some ways Medvedev’s plan to create a legitimate outlet for tech talent is quintessentially Soviet. The idea of a city for scientists harks back to Stalin’s purpose-built tech cities within the Gulag where selected scientists worked in conditions of privilege – and hatched such breakthroughs as the Soviet atom bomb. But in this era “you can’t have a centrally planned innovative economy,” warns Vladislav Inozemtsev, director of the Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies. “Nowhere in the world has a Silicon Valley blossomed because of decrees issued by bureaucrats, even if the decrees are backed up by government financing.”
The failure of central planning does not necessarily spell doom for Skolkovo, because Medvedev is guided by a more modern vision of how to use subsidies to steer business development. Already there are some success stories. One of Alferov’s former students, Alexei Kovsh, is moving his energy-efficient-lighting company from Germany to St. Petersburg, because Alferov convinced him that he could get better funding in Russia, with lower costs than in the West, and better protection from technology copycats than in China. Kovsh recently sold stakes in his company, Optogan, to the state-owned Rusnanotech and to the metals tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov. With the state as a third partner, Kovsh feels protected. Alferov hopes to repeat the experience to draw similar businesses to Skolkovo. Ranged against Smart Russia are the bureaucrats who prefer Russia to stay dumb – because they make so much money from it. Medvedev is pushing innovation as one of his “four I’s,” or pillars of modernization, the others being institutions, infrastructure, and investment. But truth be told, he’s not making much progress. Russia built just 1,000 kilometers of roads last year, compared with the 47,000 kilometers built by China. Former opposition legislator Vladimir Ryzhkov complains that the real four I’s of Russian modernization are “illusion, inefficiency, instability, and incompetence.” Yevgeny Gontmakher, a leading member of Medvedev’s favorite think tank, the Institute of Contemporary Development, says the flaw in the president’s strategy is that “they expect scientists to come and invent everything for them so there will be no need to reform political institutions.” No, Medvedev is not out to reform the political system top to bottom, but it’s also clear he understands the forces of Dumb Russia. “Corrupt officials … do not want development, and fear it,” he wrote in his 2009 manifesto, “Forward Russia.” “But the future does not belong to them – it belongs to us. We will overcome backwardness and corruption.” May the smart Russians win.
Check your comprehension
~ In what way does Medvedev’s plan differ from Soviet central planning approach?
~ Why do the bureaucrats prefer Russia to stay unintelligent?
Unit 8