Military Gears Up for Bomb-Bot 2.0

Bomb disposal robots have saved thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the machines are still pretty crude -- with limited vision, and tiny brains. That could start to change soon, however. The U.S. armed forces are getting ready to launch the next generation of bomb-bots.
According to a Navy presentation obtained by Danger Room, the military is planning two models for its Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System (AEODRS). One machine would be a little smaller and a little longer-lasting than iRobot's Packbot 510 explosives-handler. The other would be a little heavier than Qinetiq's Talon bomb-bot, but a human-like hand would cope with the weapons, in addition to the Talon's claw.
The really substantial changes would be inside the machines: beefed-up sensors, for "self-awareness and environmental awareness," as well as "improved perception and intelligence ... for increased autonomous navigation." The tech would free up military robot-handlers who now have to guide the machine's every move -- and make decisions based on the bot's often fuzzy video feeds.
The AEODRS program is also designed to give the maintenance guys a break. In the current setup, they can only use Packbot sensors on Packbot machines, and Talon devices on Talon robots. The military wants to replace that with an architecture that allows "Sensor A from Robot B [to] be seamlessly swapped and used on Robot C for Sensor D." A controller from one company should be able to guide the other firm's robots, too.
After some initial consultations with robot manufacturers in 2007, the military says it's ready to start the project this fall. Production could begin on the newest bomb-bots by 2013.

Bomb Threat

Bombing, and the threat of being bombed are harsh realities in today's world. The public is becoming more aware of those incidents of violence that are perpetrated by vicious, nefarious segments of our society through the illegal use of explosives. The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center Police Department is charged with providing protection for life and property, but they alone cannot be held responsible. Everyone on the Health Sciences Center Campus must do his or her part to ensure a safe environment.
Bombs can be constructed to look like almost anything, and can be placed, or delivered in any number of ways. The probability of finding a bomb that looks like the stereotypical bomb is almost nonexistent. The only common denominator that exists among bombs is that they are designed, or intended, to explode.
Most bombs are homemade, and are limited in their design only by the imagination of, and resources available to, the bomber. Remember, when searching for a bomb, suspect anything that looks unusual - let the trained bomb technician determine what is, or is not, a bomb.
Bomb threats are delivered in a variety of ways. The majority of threats are called in to the target. Occasionally these calls are through a third party. Sometimes, a threat is communicated in writing, or by a recording.

There are two logical explanations for calling, or making, a bomb threat:

1. The caller has definite knowledge, or believes, that an explosive, or incendiary bomb, has been, or will be placed. He, or she, wants to minimize personal injury, or property damage. The caller may be the person who placed the device, or someone who has become aware of such information.
2. The caller wants to create an atmosphere of anxiety and panic which will, in turn, result in a disruption of the normal activities at the location where the device is purportedly placed.If a bomb threat is received over the telephone, take the following actions:
1. Stay Calm
2. Attempt to get the following information from the caller:
WHERE THE BOMB IS?
WHAT TIME IS THE BOMB SET TO EXPLODE?
WHAT TYPE OF BOMB IS IT?
WHAT TYPE OF CONTAINER IS THE BOMB IN?
WHY WAS THE BOMB PLACED?, and
WHO THE BOMBER OR CALLER IS?
3. Have a co-worker, or another person contact the OU HSC Police (14911) using another telephone, and as covertly as possible.
4. Write information down as the caller says it, and have the co-worker, or other person relay this information to the OU HSC Police.
5. Try to the keep the caller on the phone. Listen for any background noises; voice inflection; accent, and anything that would help to determine the origin of the call
6. Evacuate the building upon instructions from properly identified emergency response personnel, or as deemed appropriate in individual situations.
7. All evacuees should report to an outside predesignated area for accountability. LETTER AND PACKAGE BOMB INDICATORS

*DO NOT OPEN THE PACKAGE OR LETTER
*Isolate the package or letter, and evacuate the immediate area. Call the OU HSC Police Department IMMEDIATELY. @ 1+4911
*DO NOT put the package or letter in water or confined space such as a desk drawer or filing cabinet.
*If possible, open windows in the immediate area to assist in venting potential explosive gasses.
*If you have any reason to believe a letter, or parcel, is suspicious, do not take the chance, or worry about possible embarrassment, if the item turns out to be innocent. Instead, contact the OU HSC Police Department.

UH, Army to scour for bombs in ocean

The Army will again partner with the University of Hawaii this August on a $2.3 million underwater survey to try to pinpoint the location of nearly 600 tons of chemical weapons believed to have been dumped five miles south of Pearl Harbor in 1944.
Eric De Carlo, UH oceanography professor, said the more extensive part of the underwater survey will involve the use of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory submersibles Pisces IV and Pisces V in November.
The Army says it believes that 16,000 M47A2 bombs containing nearly 600 tons of mustard agent were dumped in the area around Oct. 1, 1944. Each chemical bomb weighs 100 pounds and is nearly 32 inches long. The depth in the areas is estimated at between 1,000 and 1,500 feet.

Tad Davis, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for the environment, safety and occupational health, told reporters yesterday that the Pearl Harbor site is one of three known chemical weapons dumpsites that were found during what he described as "the largest research project" ever undertaken by the Army. The Army pored over a more than a million documents housed at the National Archives in Maryland and Washington, D.C., dealing with the way chemicals were disposed between 1919 and 1972, when the practice of ocean dumping was banned.
Besides the site the Army and the University of Hawaii scientists will examine this summer, the Army believes there are two other dumping areas in Hawaii waters.
The largest amount of chemical weapons is believed to have been dumped in an area 10 miles west of the Waianae Coast, where nearly 2,000 tons of lewisite, mustard, hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride were discarded.
Lewisite and mustard are blister agents, which produce irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes and, when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride are blood agents, which, when inhaled, interfere with the tissue oxygenation process, especially in the brain.
An additional 29 tons of mustard were disposed of 10 miles south of Pearl Harbor.
Chemical weapons were routinely dumped into the ocean from the end of World War II until outlawed by Congress in 1972, Davis added.
Except for the lewisite, the chemicals were contained in bombs, projectiles and mortar shells. The lewisite was housed in large containers. Some of the chemical bombs were 1,000-pounders containing hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride.
De Carlo said the methodology will be similar to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration project last year that surveyed the area known as Ordnance Reef off Pokai Bay. That survey took two weeks and combed a 5-square-mile area using sophisticated sea floor mapping and imaging equipment. NOAA concluded in March that there was little contamination from the conventional munitions found there.

Chemical bond energy example

In the chemical bonds of a molecule the attractive electrical forces cause bound states to exist. That is, the atoms of the molecule cannot escape the molecule without a supply of external energy. Bound states imply a negative potential energy compared to the free atoms, so any chemical bond has associated with it a negative potential energy. The principle of conservation of energy can be used as an overall analysis tool for looking at chemical reactions involving changes in bonds.
Consider the combination of two molecules of H2 with one molecule of O2 to form two molecules of water, H2O. Energetically, the process can be considered to require the energy to dissociate the H2 and O2, but then the bonding of the H2O returns the system to a bound state with negative potential. It is actually more negative than the bound states of the reactants, and the formation of the two water molecules actually releases 5.7 electron volts of energy .
The balance of energy before and after the reaction can be illustrated schematically with the state in which all atoms are free taken as the reference for energy.

If the dissociation energies of the H2 and O2 and the energy release upon their reaction were measured, that would offer an experimental path to determining the total bond energy of the H2O molecule.
An energy balance approach can also be useful in the analysis of an ionic bond.

Available experimental parameters for sodium, chlorine and the NaCl molecule provide data for calculation of the dissociation energy of the molecule from conservation of energy. The steps toward forming the NaCl ionic molecule could be seen as (1) providing the ionization energy of 5.14 eV to ionize Na, then (2) the recovery of -3.62 eV from the electron affinity of Cl, then the binding energy of the electric attractive forces based on the known bond length of 0.236 nm. But this process does not match the measured dissociation energy of NaCl, 4.26 eV. This reveals the presence of another repulsive energy term called Pauli repulsion (+0.32 eV).

U.S., South Korea Sign Free-Trade Pact

Chemical makers say agreement will boost U.S. exports to fast-growing Asian market

The chemical industry is welcoming a free-trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea, but the measure faces opposition in Congress from Democrats who fear it could cost auto industry jobs.
The agreement is the largest bilateral trade deal the U.S. has negotiated since the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. It would eliminate tariffs on 95% of consumer and industrial products between the two countries within three years.

South Korea is among the world's top 10 chemical-producing countries. Already the sixth-largest market for U.S. chemical exports, which totaled $4.3 billion in 2006, the country is among the fastest growing markets for them in Asia.
"We are eager to see chemical tariffs in Korea eliminated as quickly as possible," says American Chemistry Council President Jack N. Gerard. "We are pleased that this agreement includes strong protections for investments and intellectual property, as well as important commitments by Korea on regulatory transparency and technical barriers to trade."
Officials signed the accord on June 30, just hours before President George W. Bush's authority to negotiate "fast track" trade agreements expired. That authority allowed the White House to broker free-trade deals that Congress must either approve or reject, but cannot change.
"This is the most commercially significant trade agreement for the U.S. in nearly 15 years," says Commerce Secretary Carlos M Gutierrez
Key Democrats, however, contend the measure does not go far enough in dismantling South Korea's nontariff barriers, especially in the automotive industry. Last year, they note, South Korea exported more than 700,000 cars to America, while the U.S. shipped fewer than 5,000 cars there.
"Unfortunately, the agreement as currently negotiated is a missed opportunity," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other House Democratic leaders say in a joint statement. "We cannot support it as currently negotiated."
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab says the pact "will stand on its own, without amendment," and she believes lawmakers "will come to understand the details and learn just how compelling a deal it is."

Chemical Secretions of the leaf-cutter ant Acromyrex octospinosus

In a study featured in the Journal of Chemical Ecology the complex and intricate secretions of the leaf cutter ant, specifically the ant Acromyrex octospinosus, were studied and identified. The metaplural gland found only in ants has been the subject of much debate in regards to its purpose in the ant's biology. The gland was first believed to give off secretions of pheromones to mark territory and identify nest mates. In recent years this theory was replaced with a new one that the metaplural gland was actually involved in antibody defense against microorganisms. In the Ortis-Lechner and others study featured in the Journal of Chemical Ecology, it was these metaplural gland secretions that they were studying.

In the Ortis-Lechner and others study twenty-one major chemical compounds were identified! These twenty-one chemical compounds were identified through gas chromatography, and by testing 138 specimens from three different ant castes (major, media and minor) to get their results.

So what does all this mean?

From the results of the Ortis-Lecher and others, study of the metaplural gland and its secretions a couple of possible conclusions are reached. Firstly due to the wide range of discovered acids the metaplural gland secretion can be used to lower the pH in the fungus garden. This theory is supported by the knowledge that the fungus in garden grows at a pH of five and that if the ants are taken away from their gardens in a matter of days the pH has risen to that of seven or eight (journal of chemical ecology 26: 1679). However the acids in the metaplural gland could also have antibiotical uses for the ants or their surroundings. Needless to say the chemical interactions between the leaf cutter ant and its food source fungus are massive, whether it is the ant adjusting the pH for the fungus to have optimal growth conditions or it is the fungus giving enzymes to the ants to allow the ants to digest usually non-digestible parts of plants.

Reactive Chemicals

To safely handle and use chemicals (or products that incorporate chemicals), users must understand the hazards associated with these materials. In particular, certain chemicals can spontaneously decompose or explode, especially at elevated temperature or pressure. Other chemicals may react violently when mixed with incompatible materials. These reactions may result in death and injury to people, damage to physical property, and severe effects to the environment. All chemical reactions involve energy changes. The activation energy is the energy necessary to start the reaction, and the heat of reaction is the energy released (or absorbed) during the reaction. An exothermic chemical reaction releases energy, while an endothermic reaction absorbs energy. If a chemical reaction releases energy, either very rapidly or in very large quantities, and the process cannot absorb the excess energy, it has the potential to damage the containment structure or surroundings. Accordingly, mitigation strategies for reactive hazards are typically focused on controlling the rate and extent of energy release. Because most reactions speed up at higher temperature and pressure, a typical strategy to prevent a chemical runaway reaction requires active cooling or venting. While classic thermodynamics allows a top-level view of whether a specific reaction can or cannot occur under given conditions of temperature or pressure, the rate at which the reaction will actually occur has to be determined by incorporating experimental or numerical tools from a chemical kinetics repertoire. By balancing the rate of energy release against the rate that the energy is absorbed (or otherwise used up), it is possible to predict whether a specific chemical combination will cause a runaway chemical reaction.

Exponent engineers and scientists have significant experience in evaluating reactive chemical hazards for a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and residential applications. For more than 40 years, we have investigated thousands of incidents, ranging from large explosions or detonations caused by a runaway chemical reaction, to small fires caused by the self heating of oil-soaked rags stored in a manner that allowed trapped heat to accumulate. Results of our research and investigations are frequently published or presented in peer-reviewed journals and technical symposia, including the Loss Prevention Symposium sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the Mary Kay O’Conner Process Safety Center at the Texas A&M University. Exponent also conducts audits of chemical and industrial processes, and offers design review and chemical analysis of consumer products and equipment to determine compliance with applicable United Nations (UN), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and other federal and state regulations. We also assist our clients in developing appropriate risk management, mitigation, and hazard communication strategies.