skip to main | skip to sidebar

Check It-

Photoshop Design Designers

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

USB 2.0 vs USB 3.0

0 comments
USB 3.0, the latest version of USB (Universal Serial Bus), provides better speed and more efficient power management than USB 2.0. USB 3.0 is backward compatible with USB 2.0 devices; however, data transfer speeds are limited to USB 2.0 levels when these devices inter-operate.

Comparison chart

USB 2.0


USB 3.0

Released: April 2000 November 2008
Speed: High Speed or HS, 480 Mbps (Megabits per second) 10 times faster than USB 2.0. Super Speed or SS, 4.8 Gbps (Giga bits per second)
Signaling Method: Polling mechanism i.e can either send or receive data Asynchronous mechanism i.e. can send and receive data simultaneously
Price: For a similar product, the USB 2.0 version is generally less expensive than it's USB 3.0 version. For a similar product, the USB 3.0 version is generally more expensive than it's USB 2.0 version.
Power Usage: Up to 500 mA Up to 900 mA. Allows better power efficiency with less power for idle states. Can power more devices from one hub.
Number of wires within the cable: 4 8
Standard-A Connectors: Grey in color Blue in color
Standard-B Connectors: Smaller in size Extra space for more wires

What is USB 3.0 and USB 2.0?

Universal Serial Bus (USB) is an industry standard developed in the mid-1990s that defines the cables, connectors and communications protocols used in a bus for connection, communication and power supply between computers and electronic devices. Now even devices like smartphones, PDAs and video game consoles are connected to the computers with USB ports allowing recharging and communication thereby replacing the requirement of adapters and power chargers.
USB3.0 was released in November 2008, almost eight years after the release of USB 2.0.

USB 3.0 Highlights and Benefits over USB 2.0                

  • Transfer rates - USB 2.0 offers transfer rates of 480 Mbps and USB 3.0 offers transfer rates of 4.8 Gbps - that's 10 times faster.
  • Addition of another phsyical bus - The amount of wires has been doubled, from 4 to 8. Additional wires require more space in both the cables and connectors, so there are new types of connectors.
  • Power consumption - USB 2.0 provides up to 500 mA whereas USB 3.0 provides up to 900 mA. The USB 3 devices will provide more power when needed and conserve power when the device is connected but idling.
  • More bandwidth - instead of one-way communication, USB 3.0 uses two unidirectional data paths, one to receive data and the other to transmit while USB 2.0 can only handle only one direction of data at any time.
  • Improved bus utilization - a new feature has been added (using packets NRDY and ERDY) to let a device asynchronously notify the host of its readiness.
When data is being transferred through USB 3.0 Devices, cables and connectors transaction is initiated by the host making a request followed by a response from the device. The device either accepts the request or rejects it. If accepted then device sends data or accepts data from the host. If there is lack of buffer space or data, it responds with a Not Ready (NRDY) signal to tell the host that it is not able to process the request. When the device is ready then, it will send an Endpoint Ready (ERDY) to the host which will then reschedule the transaction.

Physical Differences                                                                    

USB 3.0 Connectors are different from USB 2.0 Connectors and the 3.0 connectors are usually colored blue on the inside in order to distinguish them from the 2.0 connectors.
Various types of USB Connectors (click to enlarge). From Left to Right: Micro USB Type AB, Micro USB Type B, USB 2.0 Type A, USB 2.0 Type B, USB 3.0 Type A, USB 3.0 Type B, USB 3.0 Type Micro B, Min USB Type A connector
Various types of USB Connectors (click to enlarge). From Left to Right: Micro USB Type AB, Micro USB Type B, USB 2.0 Type A, USB 2.0 Type B, USB 3.0 Type A, USB 3.0 Type B, USB 3.0 Type Micro B, Min USB Type A connector

Backward Compatible                                                                

USB 3.0 is compatible with USB 2.0. However, the USB 3.0 product will perform at the same level as a USB 2.0 product, so speed and power benefits will not be fully realized.
USB 3.0 receptacles are electrically compatible with USB Standard 2.0 device plugs if they physically match. USB 3.0 type-A plugs and receptacles are completely backward compatible, and USB 3.0 type-B receptacles will accept USB 2.0 and earlier plugs. However, USB 3.0 type-B plugs will not fit into USB 2.0 and earlier receptacles.
This means that USB 3.0 cables cannot be used with USB 2.0 and USB 1.1 peripherals, although USB 2.0 cables can be used with USB 3.0 devices, if at USB 2.0 speeds. 

Price

For a similar product, the USB 3.0 version is generally more expensive than it's USB 2.0 version.

3G Vs. 4G

0 comments
How much faster is 4G compared to 3G and what applications run better on 4G?
3G and 4G are standards for mobile communication. Standards specify how the airwaves must be used for transmitting information (voice and data). 3G (or 3rd Generation) was launched in Japan in 2001. As recently as mid-2010, the networks for most wireless carriers in the U.S. were 3G. 3G networks were a significant improvement over 2G networks, offering higher speeds for data transfer. The improvement that 4G offers over 3G is often less pronounced. Analysts use the analogy of standard vs Hi-Def TV to describe the difference between 3G and 4G.

Comparison chart:

3G 4G
Data Throughput: Up to 3.1mbps Practically speaking, 3 to 5 mbps but potential estimated at a range of 100 to 300 mbps.
Peak Upload Rate: 50 Mbit/s 500 Mbit/s
Peak Download Rate: 100 Mbit/s 1 Gbit/s
Switching Technique: packet switching packet switching, message switching
Network Architecture: Wide Area Cell Based Integration of wireless LAN and Wide area.
Services And Applications: CDMA 2000, UMTS, EDGE etc Wimax2 and LTE-Advance
Forward error correction (FEC): 3G uses Turbo codes for error correction. Concatenated codes are used for error corrections in 4G.
Frequency Band: 1.8 – 2.5GHz 2 – 8GHz




Comparison Between A-GPS and GPS

0 comments
 
A-GPS and GPS are different navigational aids that both use information from satellites to determine their exact location on Earth.
GPS stands for Global Positioning System. A GPS device communicates with 4 or more satellites to determine its exact location coordinates (latitude and longitude) anywhere on Earth. It works in any weather as long as the device has a clear line of sight to the satellites.
A-GPS stands for Assisted Global Positioning System. While it works on the same principles as a GPS (explained below), the difference here is that it gets the information from the satellites by using network resources e.g. mobile network, also called assistant servers.

Comparison chart

A-GPS GPS
Stands for: Assisted Global Positioning System Global Positioning System
Source of triangulation information: Radio signals from satellites and assistance servers e.g. mobile network cell sites Radio signals from GPS satellites
Speed: A-GPS devices determine location coordinates faster because they have better connectivity with cell sites than directly with satellites. GPS devices may take several minutes to determine their location because it takes longer to establish connectivity with 4 satellites.
Reliability: Location determined via A-GPS are slightly less accurate than GPS GPS devices can determine location coordinates to within 1 meter accuracy
Cost: It costs money to use A-GPS devices on an ongoing basis because they use mobile network resources. GPS devices communicate directly with satellites for free. There is no cost of operation once the device is paid for.
Usage: Mobile phones Cars, planes, ships/boats

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Life on Mars

0 comments

Life on Mars

Michael Caplinger, Malin Space Science Systems April 1995
In 1877, Giovanni Schiaparelli produced the first "modern" map of Mars, on which he showed a system of what he called canali. Although canali in Italian means "channel", without the implication of being an artificial feature, the word was commonly translated into English as "canal".
Schiaparelli's map of Mars (1888)
In 1910, Percival Lowell captured the imagination of the public with his book Mars As the Abode of Life. Based on his extensive visual observations (and as we know today, an active imagination) Lowell painted a compelling portrait of a dying planet, whose inhabitants had constructed a vast irrigation system to distribute water from the polar regions to the population centers nearer the equator.
Despite its appeal to the public, the astronomical community never gave serious credence to the details of Lowell's theory. The failure of many observers to confirm the existence of the canals eventually led scientists to suspect that their colleagues had been fooled into seeing the canals, by the difficulty in resolving fine detail from Earth and their own desire to believe. (This map, constructed from Viking orbiter images in the same format as Schiaparelli's -- south is up -- shows no sign of the canals, though a few features may have been interpreted as such.)
Mars from Viking
But the Lowell-inspired idea of an Earthlike Mars proved more durable. At the dawn of the space age, Mars was considered to have an atmosphere about a tenth the density of Earth's, water ice polar caps that waxed and waned with the seasons, and an annual "wave of darkening" that was often interpreted as growing plant life.
In the 1960s, observations from Earth and flyby spacecraft signalled the beginning of the end for Lowell's Mars. The Mariner 4, 6, and 7 missions returned images of a moonlike, heavily-cratered surface. The atmosphere was found to be almost pure carbon dioxide (CO2), only a hundredth the density of Earth's, and the polar caps proved to be almost entirely frozen CO2. The first global views of Mars, returned by the Mariner 9 orbiter in 1972, revealed that the planet was far more complex than the earlier flyby missions had shown, with huge volcanoes, an enormous canyon system, and evidence of running water at some point in the past. But the wave of darkening was shown to be the result of seasonal redistribution of windblown dust on the surface, the atmosphere's composition and density were confirmed, and most of the evidence for an Earthlike Mars was swept away.
But despite all these blows, the possibility of organisms on the surface could not yet be ruled out. For this reason, in 1976 the Viking landers carried a sophisticated instrument to look for possible life forms on the martian surface.

The Viking Biology Experiment

The Viking biology experiment weighed 15.5 kg (34 lbs) and consisted of three subsystems: the Pyrolytic Release experiment (PR), the Labeled Release experiment (LR), and the Gas Exchange experiment (GEX).
Viking Biology Experiment
In addition, independent of the biology experiments, Viking carried a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GCMS) that could measure the composition and abundance of organic compounds in the martian soil. (It should be noted that organic is a chemical term simply meaning "carbon-containing", and does not require the presence of life, although all life on Earth does contain carbon.)

Labeled Release

The LR experiment moistened a 0.5-cc sample of soil with 1 cc of a nutrient consisting of distilled water and organic compounds. The organic compounds had been labeled with radioactive carbon-14. After moistening, the sample would be allowed to incubate for at least 10 days, and any microorganisms would hopefully consume the nutrient and give off gases containing the carbon-14, which would then be detected. (Terrestrial organisms would give off CO2, carbon monoxide (CO), or methane (CH4).)

Gas Exchange

The GEX experiment partially submerged a 1-cc sample of soil in a complex mixture of compounds the investigators called "chicken soup". The soil would then be incubated for at least 12 days in a simulated martian atmosphere of CO2, with helium and krypton added. Gases that might be emitted from organisms consuming the nutrient would then be detected by a gas chromatograph -- this instrument could detect CO2, oxygen (O2), CH4, hydrogen (H2), and nitrogen (N2).

Pyrolytic Release

Of the three Viking biology experiments, only the PR experiment approximated actual martian surface conditions and did not use water. In this experiment, a 0.25-cc soil sample was incubated in a simulated martian atmosphere of CO2 and CO labeled with carbon-14. A xenon arc lamp provided simulated sunlight. After 5 days, the atmosphere was flushed and the sample heated to 625 degrees C (1157F) to break down, or pyrolyze, any organic material, and the resulting gases were passed through a carbon-14 detector to see if any organisms had ingested the labeled atmosphere.

The Results

The most important result for the detection of life came not from the biology experiment, but from the GCMS. It found no trace of any organic compound on the surface of Mars. Organic compounds are known to be present in space (for example, in meteorites), so this result came as a complete surprise. The GCMS was definitely working, however, because it was able to detect traces of the cleaning solvents that had been used to sterilize it prior to launch.
The total absence of organic material on the surface made the results of the biology experiments moot, since metabolism involving organic compounds were what those experiments were designed to detect. However, the results from the biology experiments were sufficiently confusing to be worth examining.
To reduce the chance of false positives, the biology experiments not only had to detect life in a soil sample, they had to fail to detect it in another soil sample that had been heat-sterilized (the control sample). Had terrestrial life been tested with the Viking biology instrument, the following results would have been expected:
response for  response for
 sample   heat-sterilized control

GEX oxygen or CO2 emitted none
LR labeled gas emitted none
PR carbon detected  none
If life was completely absent from Mars, as the GCMS results suggested, these should have been the results from the biology experiments:
response for  response for
 sample   heat-sterilized control

GEX none   none
LR none   none
PR none   none
In highly simplified form, these were the actual results from Mars:
response for  response for
 sample   heat-sterilized control

GEX oxygen emitted  oxygen emitted
LR labeled gas emitted none
PR carbon detected  carbon detected
The fact that both the GEX and PR experiments produced positive results even with the control sample indicates that non-biological processes are at work. Subsequent laboratory experiments on Earth demonstrated that highly-reactive oxidizing compounds (oxides or superoxides) in the soil would, when exposed to water, produce hydrogen peroxide. Oxidized iron, such as maghemite, could act as a catalyst to produce the results seen by the PR experiment.
Only the LR experiment appears to have met the criteria for life detection, and it does this rather ambiguously. When the nutrient was first injected, there was a rapid increase in the amount of labeled gas emitted. Subsequent injections of nutrient caused the amount of gas to decrease initially (which is surprising if biological processes were at work) but then to increase slowly. No response was seen in the control sample sterilized at the highest temperature (160C, 320F.) While there is still some controversy, the consensus opinion is that the LR results can also be explained non-biologically.

Extinct Life

Most researchers now believe that the results of the Viking biology experiments can explained by purely chemical processes that do not require the presence of life, and the GCMS results completely rule out life in any event. Thus, there is no detectable life at the two Viking landing sites, which were widely separated and different in character (the Viking 2 landing site was specifically chosen because of its high latitude, since it was closer to polar water sources.) While the possibility of "oases" of more favorable conditions for life cannot be eliminated, for example in subsurface permafrost layers or in geothermal vents near volcanoes, the chances that life exists on Mars at the present time do not seem good.
However, we have seen evidence that Mars may have been significantly wetter, perhaps with a denser atmosphere, earlier in its history. If so, there is the possibility that life arose on Mars, only to die out as conditions on the planet worsened. Therefore, some researchers have suggested that future searches for life on Mars be shifted to focus on extinct, rather than extant, life.
On Earth, such extinct life can be found in the form of microfossils and stromatolites. Such forms, as found in western Australia, are the oldest evidence of life on Earth, dating from 3.5 billion years ago. Microfossils are individual fossilized organisms (typically algae), as much as a few millimeters in diameter. Stromatolites are formed when layers of microbial organisms in shallow lakes or pools are covered with sediments. The organisms migrate toward the light after being covered, and the remaining organic material forms a characteristic layered or domed structure.
Stromatolites are important because they may be large enough to be seen by lander (or perhaps even high-resolution orbiter) cameras, and so some researchers have suggested searching for them near features that appear to be ancient lakes or bays. While definitive proof of biological origin would require microscopic imaging or sample return, the discovery of such features would lend credibility to the idea of extinct life.

Conclusions

The question of whether life is common or rare in the universe has deep philosophical implications. It is uncertain exactly how life arose on Earth, so it is difficult to determine how common such mechanisms are. But if life also arose on Mars, this would show that those mechanisms operated not just once, but twice, arguing that life may well be common elsewhere.
However, the search for life on Mars thus far has been unsuccessful. Some portion of the scientific community feels that further searches are a waste of time, while another portion remains neutral or guardedly optimistic. In principle, it's simple to prove that there is life on Mars -- all one need do is find an example. Proving there isn't life on Mars is much harder. Even a prolonged negative search can be countered with the suggestion of yet another, more inaccessible place in which to look.
In the case of Mars, the issue has been complicated by the emotional belief in an Earthlike Mars, which has largely been shown to have been a myth. Mars is a spectacular place, and will remain so even if it is finally proved to be lifeless. Today, we don't know for sure if there is or ever was life on Mars. But one thing is certain -- one day, there will be.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Time Warner cable (Android app.)

1 comments
TWC lets their users watch cable on android. Turn any room into a TV room, they say.
* 7 days of TV listings with search and favorites
Even if you don’t have TWC, don’t fret, this should “encourage” your service provider to let you access what you pay for on your phone.
Meanwhile try Youtube Remote, its way better than any other TV offering out there.