A new tonometer based on the application of micro-mechanical sensors

An instrument for the measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) is presented. It consists of a micromachined silicon sensor, which measures the diameter of a flattened part of the eye globe and simultaneously determines the smallest distance between the center of the sensor and the contour of this applanation. In the center of this applanation sensor a micro mechanical plunger is realized, which transfers the applied pressure to a separate force sensor. Preliminary results show that this sensor may improve the accuracy of Mackay-Marg-based electronic tonometer

A positioning sensor for tonometric applications

In this paper we present a sensor, which is designed for application in a tonometer, an instrument for the measurement of intraocular pressure. The sensor measures diameter and position of a part of the eye globe that is flattened by the tonometer. The sensor principle is based on a change in resistance of four resistor arrays due to contact with a metallized foil, which flattens a part of the eye globe. In spite of some problems with the contact resistance between the resistor contact arrays and the metallized foil, it may be concluded that the positioning sensor can be used to improve existing tonometers

Embedded 5V-to-3.3V Voltage Regulator for Supplying Digital ICs in 3.3V CMOS Technology

A fully integrated 5 V-to-3.3 V supply voltage regulator for application in digital IC's has been designed in a 3.3 V 0.5 μm CMOS process. The regulator is able to deliver peak current transients of 300 mA, while the output voltage remains within a margin of 10% around the nominal value. The circuit draw's a static quiescent current of 750 μA during normal operation, and includes a power-down mode with only 10 μA current consumption. The die area is 1 mm2, and can be scaled proportional to the maximum peak current. Special precautions have been taken to allow 5 V in the 3.3 V process

Mapping e-Science’s Path in the Collaboration Space: Ontological Approach to Monitoring Infrastructure Development

In an undertaking such as the U.S. Cyberinfrastructure Initiative, or the UK e-science program, which span many years and comprise a great many projects funded by multiple agencies, it can be very difficult to keep tabs on what everyone is doing. But, it is not impossible. In this paper, we propose the construction of ontologies as a means of monitoring a research program’s portfolio of projects. In particular, we introduce the “virtual laboratory ontology” (VLO) and show how its application to e-Science yields a mapping of the distribution of projects in several dimensions of the “collaboration space.” In this paper, we sketch out a method to induce a project mapping from project descriptions and present the resulting map for the UK e-science program. This paper shows the proposed mapping approach to be informative as well as feasible, and we expect that its further development can prove to be substantively useful for future work in cyber-infrastructure-building.e-Science, virtual laboratory ontology, collaboration space, project mapping, cyber-infrastructure building

The tonometric sensor, a new device for the measurement of intraocular pressure

In this paper we present a new sensor for the measurement of intraocular pressure. We have applied the indentation principle, in which the eye is indented by exerting a force on it, while the size of the indented area is monitored. To measure the force we have used a commercial force sensor. The sensor to measure the indentation of the eye has been developed in our laboratories. We have performed measurements using an experimental set-up; these show that an accuracy of 90% will be possible if the sensor is designed in the proper way

Collaborative Research in e-Science and Open Access to Information

This contribution examines various aspects of “openness” in research, and seeks to gauge the degree to which contemporary “e-science” practices are congruent with “open science.” Norms and practices of openness are vital for the work of modern scientific communities, but concerns about the growth of stronger technical and institutional restraints on access to research tools, data, and information recently have attracted notice—in part because of their implications for the effective utilization of advanced digital infrastructures and information technologies in research collaborations. Our discussion clarifies the conceptual differences between e-science and open science, and reports findings from a preliminary look at practices in U.K. e-science projects. Both parts serve to emphasize that it is unwarranted to presume that the development of e-science necessarily promotes global open science collaboration. Since there is evident need for further empirical research to establish where, when, and to what extent “openness” in scientific and engineering research may be expected to advance hand-in-hand, we outline a framework within which such a program of studies might be undertaken.e-Science, Open Science, Engineering Reserach

Will e-Science Be Open Science?

This contribution examines various aspects of “openness” in research, and seeks to gauge the degree to which contemporary “e-science” practices are congruent with “open science.” Norms and practices of openness are vital for the work of modern scientific communities, but concerns about the growth of stronger technical and institutional restraints on access to research tools, data, and information recently have attracted notice—in part because of their implications for the effective utilization of advanced digital infrastructures and information technologies in research collaborations. Our discussion clarifies the conceptual differences between e-science and open science, and reports findings from a preliminary look at practices in U.K. e-science projects. Both parts serve to emphasize that it is unwarranted to presume that the development of e-science necessarily promotes global open science collaboration. Since there is evident need for further empirical research to establish where, when, and to the extent “openness” and "e-ness" in scientific and engineering research may be expected to advance hand-in-hand, we outline a framework within which such a program of studies might be undertaken.e-Science, Open Science, Engineering Reserach

Coordination, Division of Labor, and Open Content Communities: Template Messages in Wiki-Based Collections

In this paper we investigate how in commons based peer production a large community of contributors coordinates its efforts towards the production of high quality open content. We carry out our empirical analysis at the level of articles and focus on the dynamics surrounding their production. That is, we focus on the continuous process of revision and update due to the spontaneous and largely uncoordinated sequence of contributions by a multiplicity of individuals. We argue that this loosely regulated process, according to which any user can make changes to any entry, while allowing highly creative contributions, has to come into terms with potential issues with respect to the quality and consistency of the output. In this respect, we focus on emergent, bottom up organizational practice arising within the Wikipedia community, namely the use of template messages, which seems to act as an effective and parsimonious coordination device in emphasizing quality concerns (in terms of accuracy, consistency, completeness, fragmentation, and so on) or in highlighting the existence of other particular issues which are to be addressed. We focus on the template "NPOV" which signals breaches on the fundamental policy of neutrality of Wikipedia articles and we show how and to what extent imposing such template on a page affects the production process and changes the nature and division of labor among participants. We find that intensity of editing increases immediately after the "NPOV" template appears. Moreover, articles that are treated most successfully, in the sense that "NPOV" disappears again relatively soon, are those articles which receive the attention of a limited group of editors. In this dimension at least the distribution of tasks in Wikipedia looks quite similar to what is know about the distribution in the FLOSS development process